Charlie Gard
- Thread starter Bob the Citronaut
- Start date
I wonder if the discovery of the experimental treatment was before or after Gard was already on life support. That probably had something to do with the doctors' decision.
i bet if the role were reversed and it was one of your kids, youd have a different view on this.
id bet my house youd rather take a shity choice over no choice at all.
No doubt I'd take the shitty choice over no choice. That's not at all what I'm saying. All I'm saying is that while it really sucks for those having to deal with single-payer in the UK in instances like this, dealing with insurance companies here is not all that much better.
Yes. Yes I did. Because it is. But for some, it ends up being the same no choice. Our system isn't foolproof.
You have no idea what I read so don't try and act like you know me because in reality I read everything even Fox News. I didn't know because in all honesty I haven't been paying attention that much. I knew he had brain damage and that the experimental procedure could cause great pain and wasn't guaranteed to actually do anything to help the kids situation.
I have a very good guess on what you read/watch based on your history of posts (as do others) so again, it was not shocking you missed out on this very important fact (which is why it was such a HUGE story in the UK...because the parents HAD the cash for potential options...something the UK Health Dept have allowed others to try in the past on their own dime).
I've been warning Americans ... it's worse than Medicare over there! At least with Medicare, Americans have supplementary/buy-up plans. The UK outlaws them!
Not only that, if you want to try an experimental procedure with 100% your money -- not 3rd party insurance or premiums, but no insurance, 100% of your own money -- you still have to get 'approvals,' even if it's approved in another nation!
It's 'managed cost healthcare' ... like the worse HMO on a national scale with no other options allowed! A country that makes breast implants 'medically necessary,' but puts you on waiting lists because they only allow X procedures and there are Y people who need them, where Y >> X.
Lists of death. If it's not routine and costs too much, you don't get it. As I said, worse than Medicare.
And this ^^^ is why the Americans calling for an UK-like system scare me to death! It's not that they want the UK system ... they want the UK system they think exists, but does not!
I'm all for 'socialized medicine,' even as a Libertarian. There is a solid argue for 'universal, basic healthchecks and medicine' for everyone, from a cost standpoint. I don't like it, but I'm amendable, because ER and other visits are more expensive, and we could be saving money (and lives) by catching things earlier.
But I want it like Medicare ... the US gov't and states gives me the 'lowest common denominator,' and then I am free to spend $20-30K/year to get a 'buy up plan' that covers all that Medicare does not.
Progressives keep pushing this idea that we can afford million-dollar procedures for everyone overnight. That's why we have the ACA ... a completely bankrupt, unsustainable system that even Bill Clinton got caught on camera talking about the issues with just last year!
Last edited:
LOL. You have no clue. Because unlike most it appears, if I read or listen to CNN (which isn't often because it's click bait quality) I also turn on Fox. If I read or listen to NPR, NY Times, I also read the Wall Street journal.
But since you're so worried about my reading habits, why don't you suggest some? I'm always looking for reliable sources of information.
Here, if it is routine and you don't have insurance, you die.
There has to be something in between the two extremes but it is not what the GOP is pushing for
Really? Have any evidence? Anyone can walk into any ER and get free healthcare. There are thousands of free clinics across the country.
Are you a moran? I am talking about diagnosis and preventive treatment. Everybody knows that ERs will treat you even without insurance but when you get to an ER, it may be too late (example: diabetes).
Sorry, don't use the interwebs that muchYou were one for two here. Moran was bueno. But everyone knows it's:
unfortunately the child has died.
Late term abortion proponents are fine with this
Poor kid and family. RIP. Too bad the government decided his fate instead of doctors and science.
Im going to be honest, he probably didnt have much of a chance to begin with. It was an experimental procedure and a shot in the dark at best. However as a parent, youll always take that shot in the dark vs the alternative. Its sad that the gov decided his fate instead of his parents.
I think the decision must have been made based on medical opinion; if not, that is f up
Doctors did make the decision based on science, the hospital (and then court decisions) wouldn't let the family make other choices.
Yes, God forbid they be granted the freedom to seek a 2nd opinion for their child, or seek alternate treatment for their child.
Jesus man. You'd feel right at home living somewhere that the government mandates all decisions. Venezuela is about to turn into a full fledge communist dictatorship; have you checked out Caracas?
No I wouldn't. That's a really stupid thing to say. You're better than that.
Last edited:
I was just noting that doctors were involved in the decision, to refute a statement by BTK.
the point he was trying to make was that the gov only took a few opinions and didnt care about any other alternatives, especially when a young childs life was in question. the family should be able to exhaust all alternatives and the gov shouldnt be the one one to make the call. otherwise, you should consider venezuela.
https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/gard-press-summary-20170411.pdf
Read the judge's decision. The doctors did evaluate other options - and got opinions from other doctors, but felt the course of treatment (which wasn't even tested on mice, let alone humans) would cause the patient more pain and suffering and yield no positive results. Granted that is their medical opinion, and I get what you're saying about try anything you can to save your child, but there's hail marys and then there's not following sound medical advice. How many cases have we seen where parents have either forgone medical treatment or tried other methods only to see the child suffer as a result of not following advice of doctors. I'm not saying that doctors are infallible, but this case isn't so ultimately different than some we've seen in the US.
BTW, at no point was the NHS involved in making the Gard decision.
what is sad is that you are basically saying its ok for the gov to take control. i wonder if youd feel the same way if you had a child that was involved...
Not what I'm saying at all. I'm simply saying that the "government" didn't really "take control" in Gard's case either.
Are you being this ridiculous on purpose? These parents were told that the fate and decision making for their own child rested with these government doctors. Despite them having raised money to bring the kid to the US for a different treamtment, they were being DENIED the simple right to make this deicison for their son.
You mean like these parents who were denied to try different treatment for their son, in Los Angeles (hospital took parents to court to have boy taken off life support)? http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-toddler-life-support-20160826-snap-story.html
Or in Texas, where you can't decide how you want your loved ones' final days decided if they're on life support (thanks to a state law enacted by then Gov. George W. Bush)? http://www.houstonpress.com/news/in...or-family-decides-whether-to-end-care-8141585
Not all doctors in the UK work for the government. The ones in Gard's case work for a hospital, just like doctors work for hospitals in the US. Doctors decided Gard's fate, just like doctors decide the fates of people in the US. It happens here, too.
My mother, who was diagnosed with stage 4 cancer, knows this all too well. An incredible amount of time can be wasted debating with the insurance companies about what they'll cover, when they'll cover it, where they'll cover it, etc. In fact so much time can be wasted that your condition could go from a stage 2 to a stage 4 while the insurance company debates back and forth with patients, doctors, hospitals and tries to get its shit together.
It's like the Terry Schiavo case all over again, but now conservatives have flipped sides.
And you can sue the insurance company. It's sad, but it often comes to this in the US ... and too late sometimes.
But you can not sue the gov't ... especially when the gov't system of 'waiting lists' in 'socialized medicine' is designed purposely to 'manage costs' so the taxpayer only pays max X dollars for max Y procedures, regardless of how many people need them. If you don't believe me, go look at the Canadian and British budget offices and how their systems work. The British are especially screwed up because they cover breast implants as 'medically necessary,' but not various other procedures that the ACA requires everyone to cover.
The funny thing here in the US is that the ACA costs a crapload more than socialized medicine, and covers less people. But it also requires insurance to cover many procedures that would not be in the Canadian, let alone British, systems. Whether it's private or public, or even our screwed-up, super-subsidized, out-of-control ACA mandate coverage that is unsustainable by the taxpayer -- someone always pays for it.
It's not cheap ... not at all. In fact, healthcare and education, along with law enforcement, are over 80% and, often, 90% of state budgets. That's why when the US media talks about 'costs,' and only shows the federal budget, they are showing only 40% of the story. State budgets (total) >> US federal.
And that's a choice for the parents to make ... with their own dollars.
Unless you're saying that it would be 'child abuse' for the parents to attempt to save their child's life? Did the UK government say that? Not exactly ... and it's a pathetic excuse to limit their freedoms. Even the UK government initially started to make that point ... then quickly backed down in the face of criticism that they 'love the child more than the parents.'
All I know is this ...
I trust nearly all parents more than I do the government, to know what's best for their child.
Last edited:
![[roll]](http://l.yimg.com/j/assets/img/emoticons/classic/roll.r191677.gif "roll [roll]")
Not always, and especially when the parents are going against the opinion of the doctors (all-1). Google anti-vaccine movement
