|
SuzukiSavage.com
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl General Category >> Politics, Religion (Tall Table) >> Charlie /cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1499774070 Message started by WebsterMark on 07/11/17 at 04:54:30 |
|
Title: Charlie Post by WebsterMark on 07/11/17 at 04:54:30 From WSJ this morning Charlie Gard, an 11-month old British child with a rare genetic disease, is today the most famous baby in the world. For all the wrong reasons. Even as he remains on life support at a British hospital, he has attracted the attention of the President of the United States, the pope, the British courts and the European Court of Human Rights. All because his government has backed medical experts who say the experimental treatment offered by hospitals abroad—treatments his family hopes to try and is willing to pay for themselves—would only prolong his suffering. On Friday came news that the hospital asked for a new court hearing after researchers at two hospitals abroad offered “fresh evidence” on experimental treatments for the baby’s condition. It may be that the experts the British and European courts invoke are right, that even with treatment Charlie won’t live much longer than he might with new interventions. But it’s not their decision to make. Or shouldn’t be. Charlie’s mother says the hospital won’t allow her and her husband to bring their boy home, meaning that if he is to die, it will be with the hospital and not at home with those who love him. Which raises a question: Whose baby is Charlie, anyway—his parents’ or the state’s? In this delicate case, Britain’s national care system has elevated technical expertise over parental love. Europe is much further along than America in its aggressive secularization and single-payer health-care control. Those values and priorities are on prominent display here, with an infant’s court-ordered guardian invoking “quality of life” as a reason for not allowing his parents to try experimental treatment. Precedents matter when a society is confronted with these dilemmas. If the courts prevail in Charlie’s case, it isn’t so difficult to imagine another court ruling that a child with severe Down syndrome or some other genetic disease also doesn’t have the right quality of life. Who decides? Our vote remains with the parents. |
|
Title: Re: Charlie Post by pg on 07/11/17 at 05:34:38 WTF is wrong with these people? A British judge told the parents of terminally ill baby Charlie Gard Monday that they had until Wednesday afternoon to submit what he called "new and powerful evidence" demonstrating that their son should be kept alive to receive experimental treatment. Best regards, |
|
Title: Re: Charlie Post by justin_o_guy2 on 07/11/17 at 05:55:54 If someone is willing to foot the bill, then whoever is Currently making the decisions should yield. Right now the costs are being Paid by the People, and the government has a fiduciary duty to them. If someone steps up and is willing to accept the responsibility for the costs, then they are the decision makers. |
|
Title: Re: Charlie Post by verslagen1 on 07/11/17 at 08:32:31 Today it's charlie, tomorrow who will it be. The "death board" is a reality. |
|
Title: Re: Charlie Post by T And T Garage on 07/11/17 at 08:33:07 3D2E3938272A2C2E257A4B0 wrote:
Here in the US? |
|
Title: Re: Charlie Post by Serowbot on 07/11/17 at 08:56:45 Here is a baby that cannot move it's arms or legs, and never will... it cannot breathe, cannot eat, cannot see or hear, and it never will... It also has severe brain damage... It cannot even cry... Can it feel pain?... We don't know... And it is being used as a political football... Nice... keep it alive to further your agenda... Doctors everywhere have the difficult task of guiding family to the right decision,.. to let go. It is probably the toughest part of their job. It's not government, death panels, or politics... it's just a part of life... These parents are unwilling to face reality, and their child is suffering for it. |
|
Title: Re: Charlie Post by verslagen1 on 07/11/17 at 08:58:03 273936373A273C21530 wrote:
Here in the US?[/quote] It is a reality where ever it decided financially what service is rendered. |
|
Title: Re: Charlie Post by justin_o_guy2 on 07/11/17 at 09:08:35 7660776A72676A71050 wrote:
Before the international outcry and offers of help they ASKED for Permission to Take him home to die. Maybe you missed that. |
|
Title: Re: Charlie Post by raydawg on 07/11/17 at 09:15:15 A political football, wow, imagine that ::) I wonder if the little guy had AIDS, if that would change anything? |
|
Title: Re: Charlie Post by Serowbot on 07/11/17 at 09:29:58 Taking it home?... It can't breathe on it's own... Without machinery it would be dead before they got it in the car... How long do you allow these parents this torturous delusion?... You don't want to pay for a national health,.. but you would pay to keep this baby in it's living hell indefinitely?... The question is,.. is the baby being kept alive for the baby's benefit, or for the parents?... Either is a prolonging of torture for both. |
|
Title: Re: Charlie Post by justin_o_guy2 on 07/11/17 at 09:39:16 The Logic of the parents fails, but the Point Is You said they were determined to continue the farce. u don't want to pay for a national health,.. but you would pay to keep this baby in it's living hell indefinitely I never said that. I pointed out TWICE why the parents don't have a right to demand ongoing life prolonging services while the people Pay for it. Especially IF the problems he has are not something that can be repaired. |
|
Title: Re: Charlie Post by WebsterMark on 07/11/17 at 09:50:39 The reality is this: The British health service is really afraid that other treatment will improve his health, but he'll need assistance for the rest of his days. Think about the care needed for a paraplegic. Britain is worried that he will live and will cost them in the future. This is precisely a death panel. As was pointed out, today it's Charlie, tomorrow its a Downs Syndrome Baby, the next day it's a baby born blind etc..... Laugh all you want, but that's what will happen. Don't believe me? When Roe v Wade was first decided, their were all kinds of restictions. Today; a woman can abort a baby with Downs, because she's afraid of labor, because she doesn't want stretch marks. She can do all of this at any time, up until delivery. Now consider that and tell me this isn't a precedent.... |
|
Title: Re: Charlie Post by Serowbot on 07/11/17 at 10:25:10 ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Slippy slope, straw man, fearmongering, ... ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D |
|
Title: Re: Charlie Post by WebsterMark on 07/11/17 at 10:56:51 You must have been the first player picked for dodgeball in school! |
|
Title: Re: Charlie Post by raydawg on 07/11/17 at 11:18:08 5C4A5D40584D405B2F0 wrote:
Uh, partial birth abortions: EXTREMELY rare, where the mothers health is at risk necessitating this type of procedure. It wouldn't be effected anyway, with the restrictions placed on current law, only where a woman decides late in term that she doesn't want a baby anymore. Argument: If pro abortionist agree to this restriction, the pro life will just extend it to ALL abortions. Cutting spending: Budget reduction, still a larger budget than the previous one. Argument against: Its a cut. No, its a reduction......old people will have to eat dog food, drink dirty water, etc. Healthcare: More people have healthcare now than ever before. Fact: More people have it, yet can use it, because the out of pocket is WAY too high and not affordable. I could go on, but why? Next. |
|
SuzukiSavage.com » Powered by YaBB 2.2! YaBB © 2000-2007. All Rights Reserved. |