It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The European Union has "Death Panels" now.

page: 2
29
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 29 2017 @ 04:39 PM
link   
The other thing is this: the parents raised the money to do this. This is an experimental therapy. What will the doctors doing it learn by having Charlie undergo it? Sure, he may die, but isn't that what happens when organs are donated? Maybe that's how this needs to be looked at too. How many other kids might live if Charlie becomes a subject with this therapy?




posted on Jun, 29 2017 @ 04:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: audubon
a reply to: AndyFromMichigan


We were assured that such an outcome was Orwellian nonsense.


And indeed it is Orwellian nonsense. You don't know what you're talking about, and nor (predictably) does Breitbart. Find a better news source and stop disturbing yourself with these bizarre fantasies.

The Charlie Gard case is complex, and unique in recent history. The parents are desperate to save their child. However, Charlie is damaged beyond repair by a horrendous but mercifully rare genetic disorder, and he is not going to survive by any method whatsoever.

Even the medics at the US clinic where his parents want to take him agree that they couldn't cure him, or even improve his prospects. Essentially, his poor parents are so distraught that they want to let their child be used as a guinea-pig before he dies, hoping for something quite literally miraculous.

The law in Britain is that medics are able to over-rule parents if they start taking decisions that will harm their children. This power is used very, very rarely, but you can see that there will be circumstances in which parents want to do exactly the wrong thing.

This power can be challenged in court. The parents challenged it in court and the court decided that the medics were right. The parents took the case all the way to the European Court of Human Rights, and the ECHR said sorry, but no dice.

Charlie Gard is going to die soon, whatever happens, and the medics have just said no to the parents dragging a terminally-ill child halfway round the world in order to undergo invasive treatment that will accomplish nothing. In other words, the medics are upholding the principle of doing no harm, but the parents want to take a gamble that they will definitely lose.

Basically, the outcome is "For Christ's sake, just let the poor little sod die in peace and dignity."

TL;DR - Death panels are a deranged fantasy of US conservatives, the Charlie Gard case is a horribly sad legal row that those conservatives do not understand.

Sources:
Great Ormond Street Hospital webpage "Charles Gard case: FAQs"
British Medical Association webpage "Parental responsibility: Basic principles"


A truly sad case and thanks for summing it up.

As a father I can understand the parents' absolute rejection of the death of their child. It's just so sad.




posted on Jun, 29 2017 @ 04:46 PM
link   
One thing US members might care to reflect upon is that none, as in not one, of the private healthcare companies in the UK have stepped forward to make a generous offer of assistance to Charlie's parents.

Last year, the UK's leading private healthcare outfit, BUPA. made a profit of just under £200million. They could so easily do it, and gain so much good publicity for themselves (and so much negative publicity for their public sector rival, the over-stretched NHS), in fact they would get world-wide attention and plaudits for their charitable intervention -- and yet they have been completely silent.

Why is this?

The answer is not what you might suppose.

The truth is that BUPA is not withholding aid because it is miserly or callous. It is because it is governed by precisely the same laws as the NHS. In this fact lies the key to correcting the 'death panels' misunderstanding. This isn't some sinister 'capitalism versus socialism' drama at all.



posted on Jun, 29 2017 @ 04:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: lordcomac
On the one hand, I am all for natural selection- I'm getting pretty tired of people with weak ass genes procreating and creating children that can't survive in the very environment we evolved in. We need to get stronger as a population to survive- not weaker.

On the other hand, if the parents can afford to take the kid overseas so it can die horribly in some experiment, they should be allowed to do that, too.
If it were my kid, and I could afford that and they told me to pound sand, I'd be pretty angry.

Very angry, come to think of it.
What gives?

On the other other hand, I live in the US and I've had "health care" here- £1 Million might not go as far as they think.


The way the healthcare system works in the UK, the parents could go over to the USA, and the hospital there would bill the NHS for the cost of the treatment.



posted on Jun, 29 2017 @ 04:54 PM
link   
a reply to: audubon

Question though ... if the parents have raised the money to take him and have this done, what right does the government have to say no?

And at what point does someone not related at all to the family get to simply say, "I am sorry. This is suffering" and pull the plug against the wishes of those with power of attorney? That is where we start to get into death panel territory.



posted on Jun, 29 2017 @ 04:55 PM
link   
a reply to: stormcell

My understanding is that if the parents go against the wishes of the NHS, they are completely outside the system so that the US docs cannot bill the NHS. Any further care for the kid is on the parents' dime.



posted on Jun, 29 2017 @ 05:06 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Well, the Government hasn't done anything at all. This is another key part of the 'death panel' myth. What has happened has happened without Government intervention (in fact, without comment as far as I am aware). It's a medical decision, made by medics, and reinforced by the judiciary - neither of those being arms of the executive.

As for the parental right to drag their kid across the Atlantic in a private life-support machine, the thing is that they are allowed to do it, but the medics are allowed by law to refuse to release their patient into the hands of parents who will cause unnecessary harm and suffering.

If they'd had the baby at home, and paid for his life-support to take place in their own home and entirely out of their own pockets, they wouldn't be in this situation. But no-one except billionaires can afford such luxury, and even if they could afford it, that wouldn't mean it was a good idea.

There is no 'death panel territory'. The whole concept is just a grotesque fantasy that is relied upon by cranks to make cheap political points while remaining unaffected by the human consequences of their delusions.



posted on Jun, 29 2017 @ 05:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: audubon

Question though ... if the parents have raised the money to take him and have this done, what right does the government have to say no?

And at what point does someone not related at all to the family get to simply say, "I am sorry. This is suffering" and pull the plug against the wishes of those with power of attorney? That is where we start to get into death panel territory.


It seems like the suffering thing is pretty legitimate so...
Hell of a hard thing to adjudicate.
I imagine that pain is something we would all want to avoid for a child.



posted on Jun, 29 2017 @ 05:17 PM
link   
a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

How sick of Breitbart to exploit this story.



posted on Jun, 29 2017 @ 05:20 PM
link   
a reply to: AndyFromMichigan


Yea very creepy that they would have to have the last word at babies expence really.



posted on Jun, 29 2017 @ 05:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: DanteGaland
Private health INSURANCE in the USA already has death panels.

Ever HEARD of "pre-authorization"



Yea one of them is Obama care. I was in the Hospital 2 years ago for 3 days on the ward that had the "nothing we can do for yea" lifetime smokers ward. I listened several times while Drs explained the best they could that these advanced conditions amounted to "we will make them as comfortable as we can". One man complained, they had Obama care, was told there was nothing, for anything, but basic care for this condition. No experimental of advanced.



posted on Jun, 29 2017 @ 05:36 PM
link   
I wonder how many children in a third world country would have their whole lives changed with only a small percentage of 1 million dollars
It's a tough call, I don't think I would want to be part of the answer



posted on Jun, 29 2017 @ 05:38 PM
link   
a reply to: audubon

Uh, the judiciary is a part of the legal apparatus which is a part of government and in the UK medicine is run by the government.

And so you are telling me that the basic lesson in the UK and places like it is that if you don't want the medical system to assume power of attorney in your affairs, you best not set foot there.
edit on 29-6-2017 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-6-2017 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-6-2017 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2017 @ 05:38 PM
link   
all you swell folks quoting the government Gods saying the experimental treatment has "no medical value" or whatever are programmed well. Good job (clap clap clap)

its that same government that says a certain plant has no medicinal value.....isnt it? that same government that develops patented products using extracts from that plant with no medicinal value.


here are THE FACTS.

1. faceless, anonymous organs of the State have historically oppressed their people and withheld critical information that would make peoples lives much better. This is documented in the open literature innumerable times.


2. science is constantly evolving and claiming a very rare disorder is so well understood that there is NOTHING that can be done to save or help the child is preposterous and incredulous to the extreme and it defies just ordinary common sense. These "experts" are claiming a god like power to know EVERYTHING about a rare health condition such they are able to categorically state there is NOTHING that can help the child. Bollocks.

3. the hallowed institutions of our Masters have routinely ignored manifold evidence that very simple alternative treatments can often be much more helpful than the synthesized laboratory ones. The little weed plant a perfect example, and now even the mainstream literature is admitting other natural products like what grows in cow paddies are able to help those with depression and other serious mental illnesses that standard meds are hit and miss on.

4. The Almighty State has shown their hand and admitted to the world that they OWN us and can choose how and when they are able to tell us how to live or die.


Everyone cheerleading the STATES decision here are apologizing for pure tyranny, they are arguing for the justification of one group of peoples right to rule over another group of people with totality and finality.


There is no justification or righteousness in a government, which is only a group of other finite mortal people, telling other people how to live or die.



posted on Jun, 29 2017 @ 05:44 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

I have private health insurance, we have many private hospitals in the UK. Nobody is forced to use the NHS aside from emergency after a 999 call. After they stabilise you your private plan hospital awaits if you have provided for it.
Nobody is forced to use the NHS, and I'm happy paying taxes to fund those who have no choice.



posted on Jun, 29 2017 @ 05:46 PM
link   
"Switching off" life support so the baby dies of suffocation, 'naturally'. Its aiready 'in pain'.

How horrific. Imagine watching your baby go thru its death throws. Can't somebody euthanize it so it goes gently while asleep?

They treat pets better at the vet.



posted on Jun, 29 2017 @ 05:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr

"Switching off" life support so the baby dies of suffocation, 'naturally'. Its aiready 'in pain'.

How horrific. Imagine watching your baby go thru its death throws. Can't somebody euthanize it so it goes gently while asleep?

They treat pets better at the vet.


According to what some have already said, this is a child who is brain dead. So I am confused as to how it's actually suffering and in pain. What is there to feel pain? Again, let the therapy happen so the doctors doing it can learn what they can from the treatment on a child where there are very, very few stakes. It might benefit other children down the line.

I can't see how this is a whole lot different than donating organs ... except the government of the UK seems to know better.



posted on Jun, 29 2017 @ 05:50 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

The UK's judiciary is not part of the Government.

You might like to remember that the US judicial system was a carbon copy of Britain's, and the US judiciary is not part of the Federal Government, or state government come to that. Hence the US Common Law being pretty much a carbon copy of the Common Law as it stood in the 18th Century.

Medicine is not 'overseen by the Government' in the UK. The real situation is very, very complex, and I don't understand it myself at times, but I do know that it is not 'overseen by the Government', in the same way that I know a salmon is not a pencil without having to understand the evolution of the salmon or the manufacture of pencils.

Please believe me, you are completely wrong on this. I live in the UK and have studied politics fairly extensively at postgraduate level. This argument isn't an argument it's a mistake.



posted on Jun, 29 2017 @ 05:50 PM
link   
a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

Reprehensible!!! Children do not belong to the State!!



posted on Jun, 29 2017 @ 05:52 PM
link   
Depending on which form of mitochondrial depletion syndrome the baby has, determines how long the kid will live. I doubt if the experimental treatment will work. That is a very serious disease, I doubt if any experimental treatment invented so far will cure this kid. It may increase it's lifespan a little longer, but that may make it suffer longer.

It should be up to the parents, if they want to spend their own money on this it should be their choice. But I would say it would be wiser just to have another kid and hope the next one does not have this disease.

Medical science has not got that advanced yet to cure this disease. CRSPR could not probably help this kid if they had it perfected.

Miracles do happen, but medical Science does not create miracles. This is an autosomal recessive disease, their other kids may not get it if they have more.



new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join