It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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.
Great Ormond Street Hospital webpage "Charles Gard case: FAQs"
British Medical Association webpage "Parental responsibility: Basic principles"
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.
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.
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.
originally posted by: DanteGaland
Private health INSURANCE in the USA already has death panels.
Ever HEARD of "pre-authorization"
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.