Jump to content

Welcome to our forums!

Sign In or Register to gain full access to our forums. By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of our community.

Photo

Here is what nationalized healthcare gets you


  • Please log in to reply
115 replies to this topic

#1 Semo

Semo

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,625 posts

Posted 30 June 2017 - 01:36 PM

Terminally ill baby Charlie Gard's parents 'utterly distraught' after losing final appeal in European court - meaning their son's life support WILL be switched off
  • Chris Gard and Connie Yates wanted their son to undergo treatment in America
  • Their baby Charlie suffers from a rare genetic condition and has brain damage
  • Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children wanted Charlie to 'die with dignity' 
  • The European Court of Human Rights today rejected his parents' final appeal

By Abe Hawken For Mailonline

Published: 12:13 EDT, 27 June 2017 | Updated: 05:16 EDT, 28 June 2017

 

The parents of terminally-ill baby Charlie Gard are 'utterly distraught' and facing fresh heartbreak after losing their final appeal in the European Court of Human Rights.

 

Chris Gard, 32, and Connie Yates, 31, wanted to take their 10-month-old son - who suffers from a rare genetic condition and has brain damage - to the US to undergo a therapy trial.

 

Doctors at Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children in London, where Charlie is being cared for, said they wanted him to be able to 'die with dignity'. 

 

But the couple, from Bedfont, west London, raised almost £1.4million so they could take their son to America but a series of courts ruled in favour of the British doctors.

 

 



#2 Semo

Semo

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,625 posts

Posted 30 June 2017 - 01:37 PM

Death panels.

 

Even though the family had raised more than enough funds to bring him to the US, courts said no.



#3 mex

mex

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,037 posts

Posted 30 June 2017 - 01:57 PM

The child was a burden to the State.

Long live the State.

#4 BroncoStud

BroncoStud

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,511 posts

Posted 30 June 2017 - 01:59 PM

Allow the same assholes that start and perpetuate wars of aggression and hold themselves above the rest of the citizens of their countries to dictate who lives and who dies...  Sounds like a winner.



#5 Semo

Semo

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,625 posts

Posted 30 June 2017 - 02:07 PM

A parent should have the freedom to pursue whatever therapies that they deem necessary to save their child. 

 

My cousin has a daughter with severe epilepsy.  They have tried every medical intervention with no success.  Finally, their specialist, who is a medical doctor btw, suggested CBD Oil therapy.  Which is proving successful with epilepsy, among other diseases.  He said he would even help them set everything up.  They are moving to Colorado.  His wife actually came onto facebook asking people not to judge them.  It was meant with overwhelming support.

 

You do what you have to, for your kids.  No judge or bureaucrat should be able to tell you differently.


  • kcchief4lif and omahacolt like this

#6 jetlord

jetlord

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,389 posts

Posted 30 June 2017 - 04:05 PM

Start with assisted suicide.

Move on to rationing treatments in hopeless cases.

Withhold treatments of the elderly because it's just not cost effective.

Ration treatments.

Death panels.

 

It"s all a slippery slope, but of course, our benevolent government leaders would never really go that way.  They care about the people too much to do that.  Don't they?


  • West likes this

#7 Semo

Semo

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,625 posts

Posted 30 June 2017 - 04:16 PM

What say you, Bil?



#8 jetlord

jetlord

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,389 posts

Posted 30 June 2017 - 04:44 PM

 

Typical Dem health care debating points.


  • kcchief4lif likes this

#9 Goldbrick

Goldbrick

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 347 posts
  • LocationNorthern Colorado

Posted 30 June 2017 - 06:14 PM

Start with assisted suicide.

Move on to rationing treatments in hopeless cases.

Withhold treatments of the elderly because it's just not cost effective.

Ration treatments.

Death panels.

 

 

 

One of these things is not like the others.



#10 mex

mex

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,037 posts

Posted 02 July 2017 - 04:05 AM

 

Typical Dem health care debating points.

yep

 

scare the shit out of people

 

the statists love them a good alarmist topic

 

global warming, global flu epidemic, aids, global climate change, wascawwy wepubwicans kicking gwandma out into the stweet



#11 oldtimer

oldtimer

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,989 posts

Posted 04 July 2017 - 03:11 PM

saw this on CBS last night  & I think it sums up Socialized Medicine  pretty well

 I would love to read Bil's reaction to this..

and its a CNN report that I'm posting but just google this child's name.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2...g-bn/index.html

 

Court rules hospital can withdraw life support for sick baby Charlie Gard

By Susan Scutti, CNN

Updated 7:53 AM ET, Fri June 30, 2017

 
 
 
170613123630-06-charlie-gard-court-case-
Charlie Gard has a rare genetic disorder known as mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome.
Story highlights
  • Life support to be withdrawn Friday, Charlie's parents said
  • The European Court of Human Rights ruled in favor of the hospital
  • Charlie's parents have been fighting to bring their son to the US for an experimental treatment

(CNN)The European Court of Human Rights ruled Tuesday a hospital can discontinue life support to a baby suffering from a rare genetic disease. His life support will be switched off Friday, his parents said.

Born in August, Charlie Gard has a rare genetic disorder known as mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome. Caused by a genetic mutation, it leads to weakened muscles and organ dysfunction, among other symptoms, with a poor prognosis for most patients.
Charlie is on life support and has been in the intensive care unit at the Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children in London since October. His doctors wish to take him off life support, but his parents disagree.
Charlie's parents, Chris Gard and Connie Yates, wanted the hospital to release Charlie into their custody so they can take him to the United States for an experimental treatment.
"The domestic courts concluded that it would be lawful for the hospital to withdraw life sustaining treatment because it was likely that Charlie would suffer significant harm if his present suffering was prolonged without any realistic prospect of improvement, and the experimental therapy would be of no effective benefit," a press release from the court announcing the decision said.
Charlie's parents appealed to the UK Supreme Court to decide the best interests of their child. After they lost that appeal, the 10-month-old was due to have his life support switched off at the end of the day June 13.
Gard and Yates then filed a request with the European Court of Human Rights, an international court based in Strasbourg, France, to consider the case.
The original ruling to provide life support until June 13 was extended by European Court of Human Rights initially for one week, until June 19. Rather than making a decision then, the court granted a three week-extension, until July 10, to allow for a more informed decision by the court. That extension ended Tuesday with the courts decision.
"There will be no rush by Great Ormond Street Hospital to change Charlie's care and any future treatment plans will involve careful planning and discussion," the hospital said in a statement after the decision was announced. They added that their thoughts are with Charlies parents.
"We are utterly heartbroken spending our last precious hours with our baby boy," Charlie's parents posted on Facebook Thursday. They went on to say the system had failed their son.
Disagreements on care
Under British law, parental responsibility includes the right to give consent for medical treatment, according to the British Medical Association.
However, parental rights are not absolute, and in cases in which doctors and parents disagree, the courts may exercise objective judgment in a child's best interest.
In April, a judge tasked with ruling on the impasse between doctors and parents decided in favor of the Great Ormond Street Hospital doctors. In his decision, Justice Francis said life support treatment should end so Charlie could die with dignity.
The boy's parents challenged this ruling in May, yet it was upheld by a Court of Appeal. Three Supreme Court justices later dismissed another challenge from the couple.
Since Charlie's birth, "his condition has deteriorated seriously," the UK Supreme Court stated in a decision June 8; his brain is severely affected, and "he cannot move his arms or legs or breathe unaided."
On this basis, the court ruled that the child's life support should be switched off June 13, but the family appealed to the European court.
Charlie's parents argued that the UK courts gave insufficient weight to their own human rights, and some of Charlie's human rights, in their decision-making, Wilson said.
After the European court's ruling to extend the deadline while judges considered the case further, the Supreme Court told doctors it "would not be unlawful" to continue to provide life support.
After the extension, a Supreme Court hearing was requested by the government and the Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children, which did not know whether the Strasbourg court order was legally binding in the UK, Wilson explained.
"There was also a secondary issue, which was that (Great Ormond Street Hospital's) legal representatives were concerned that at present, doctors did not have sufficient legal clarity about what they can and can't do if Charlie's condition deteriorates," Wilson said. "So this court was also invited to consider whether any UK court, and if so which court, should handle that matter."
Experimental science in US
Charlie's parents had hoped to take their son to the US where a doctor had agreed to carry out an experimental treatment called nucleoside bypass therapy. As the parents explained in their fundraising efforts, the therapy is an oral medication that provides Charlie with naturally occurring compounds that his body is not able to produce. In this way, the medicine might repair Charlie's flawed mitochondrial genes.
According to bioethicist Julian Savulescu of the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, the experimental therapy offers a very small chance of some improvement.
In fact, it has never been used to treat this form of mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome, according to the British ruling, though it has proved beneficial to patients with a different form of the disease.
"We strongly feel as his parents that Charlie should get a chance to try these medications," Gard and Yates wrote on their on their campaign website, Charlie's Fight.
"He literally has nothing to lose but potentially a healthier, happier life to gain," they said.
Join the conversation

See the latest news and share your comments with CNN Health on Facebook and Twitter.

Parents are rightly at the "heart" of decisions made about life-sustaining treatment for critically ill children, noted Dominic Wilkinson, director of medical ethics at the Oxford Uehiro Centre.
"However, there are limits," Wilkinson wrote in a recent editorial about Charlie's case published in The Lancet, a medical journal.
"Sadly, reluctantly, doctors and judges do sometimes conclude -- and are justified in concluding -- that slim chances of life are not always better than dying." Sometimes, the "best that medicine can do" -- and the most ethical decision -- is to provide comfort and to avoid painful and unhelpful medical treatments, he wrote.
The court said the decision was meticulous, noting that they spoke with Charlie's health care providers, independent experts, experts recommended by the family, and Charlie's parents to inform the ruling. In the end, the press released said they determined, "it was most likely Charlie was being exposed to continued pain, suffering and distress and that undergoing experimental treatment with no prospects of success would offer no benefit, and continue to cause him significant harm."


#12 NChiefsCorner

NChiefsCorner

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,973 posts
  • LocationLiberty, Missouri

Posted 04 July 2017 - 03:26 PM

Obama assured the American people that we would have no death panels, just like he assured the American people that if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor, if you like your plan you can keep your plan and that the cost of health care would go down $2500 a year, according to OC there is nothing to worry about in this country, because Obama is a man of his word and could do no wrong. :D 



#13 azchief21

azchief21

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,368 posts

Posted 04 July 2017 - 05:26 PM

Obama assured the American people that we would have no death panels, just like he assured the American people that if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor, if you like your plan you can keep your plan and that the cost of health care would go down $2500 a year, according to OC there is nothing to worry about in this country, because Obama is a man of his word and could do no wrong. :D

Obama is gone now. He's flying around the world with billionaires now. Trump made healthcare his problem. That's one of the reasons you voted for him, right? Repeal & replace!



#14 Semo

Semo

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,625 posts

Posted 04 July 2017 - 05:56 PM

Obama is gone now. He's flying around the world with billionaires now. Trump made healthcare his problem. That's one of the reasons you voted for him, right? Repeal & replace!

So what?

 

It IS called Obamacare.  He can own the lies he used to get it passed.



#15 NChiefsCorner

NChiefsCorner

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,973 posts
  • LocationLiberty, Missouri

Posted 04 July 2017 - 05:58 PM

Obama is not gone, he just told the American people to not be too patriotic today so others will not be offended. :wacko:

 

Yeah, Obama is running around with the 1% he claimed were bad people, go figure. :D



#16 Semo

Semo

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,625 posts

Posted 04 July 2017 - 05:58 PM

saw this on CBS last night  & I think it sums up Socialized Medicine  pretty well

 I would love to read Bil's reaction to this..

and its a CNN report that I'm posting but just google this child's name.

 

I already asked for his opinion.

 

No way Bil posts in this thread.   It doesn't jibe with his campaign for single payer insurance.



#17 West

West

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 9,033 posts

Posted 04 July 2017 - 06:34 PM

Bil operates a bit differently....

 

Obama and the Dems own this fiasco.

 

Trump and the repubics OWN fixing it.  They have both houses and they better get it done.

 

McConnell is not the solution, and Ryan has shown he can not be trusted.

 

I am fine with just repealing Obama-care and letting it roll.

 

w



#18 Semo

Semo

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,625 posts

Posted 04 July 2017 - 07:53 PM

Bil operates a bit differently....

Obama and the Dems own this fiasco.

Trump and the repubics OWN fixing it. They have both houses and they better get it done.

McConnell is not the solution, and Ryan has shown he can not be trusted.

I am fine with just repealing Obama-care and letting it roll.

w


People will die!!!

Blood money!!!!

Blah, blah, blah...

#19 Semo

Semo

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,625 posts

Posted 04 July 2017 - 07:55 PM

Seriously, I would be absolutely shocked if the pukes do anything other than make it worse.

No integrity in either party.
  • azchief21 likes this

#20 jetlord

jetlord

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,389 posts

Posted 04 July 2017 - 08:26 PM

People will die!!!

Blood money!!!!

Blah, blah, blah...

Another rich white male who doesn't want to pay his fair share to save the unlucky from unspeakable sickness.  Shame on him.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users