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.

 

Charlie Gard parents announce death of 'beautiful boy'

page: 2
5
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 28 2017 @ 03:04 PM
link   
Anyone who is heart-broken over this yet still supports government controlled healthcare is a damned fool.

In my opinion.

It was the government, not the parents, not the doctors, who mandated how and where and when Charlie Gard would die.




posted on Jul, 28 2017 @ 03:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
Anyone who is heart-broken over this yet still supports government controlled healthcare is a damned fool.

In my opinion.

It was the government, not the parents, not the doctors, who mandated how and where and when Charlie Gard would die.


No it was the courts and doctors who made decisions regarding care

The government had nothing to do with this, zero!



posted on Jul, 28 2017 @ 03:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin

originally posted by: DBCowboy
Anyone who is heart-broken over this yet still supports government controlled healthcare is a damned fool.

In my opinion.

It was the government, not the parents, not the doctors, who mandated how and where and when Charlie Gard would die.


No it was the courts and doctors who made decisions regarding care

The government had nothing to do with this, zero!



Yep, there's a huge amount of falsehood taken as Truth over this case.

The government had absolutely nothing to do with the decision. The decision was taken by a panel of doctors and experts who concluded that the baby was brain dead and there was nothing to be done.

Then the parents whipped up this huge online fuss about it, and allowed a bunch of falsehoods to propagate, to the extent that the hospital staff are now getting death threats.


But the simple fact remains, the poor kid was critically ill and brain dead, and there was nothing to be done. And really to be cold and heartless about it, all the parents did was extend the child's suffering for months and months.


Months and months of ICU bed time which cost the NHS many hundreds of thousands of pounds too I might add, all borne at the taxpayers expense why the legal battle over a doomed case lumbered on.


Charlie Gard got months of world class top tier medical care that probably cost into the millions, and his parents didn't pay a single penny. The system works.



posted on Jul, 28 2017 @ 03:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin

originally posted by: DBCowboy
Anyone who is heart-broken over this yet still supports government controlled healthcare is a damned fool.

In my opinion.

It was the government, not the parents, not the doctors, who mandated how and where and when Charlie Gard would die.


No it was the courts and doctors who made decisions regarding care

The government had nothing to do with this, zero!


The doctors are not law makers.
edit on 28-7-2017 by thesaneone because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 28 2017 @ 04:52 PM
link   
Lets all send that little guy some love.
He will be in heaven now.



posted on Jul, 28 2017 @ 05:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin

originally posted by: DBCowboy
Anyone who is heart-broken over this yet still supports government controlled healthcare is a damned fool.

In my opinion.

It was the government, not the parents, not the doctors, who mandated how and where and when Charlie Gard would die.


No it was the courts and doctors who made decisions regarding care

The government had nothing to do with this, zero!


Who runs your NHS and makes the rules your doctors have to follow?



posted on Jul, 28 2017 @ 05:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Painterz

In other words, Charlie Gard was a drain on resources so you favor pulling his plug. You have no compassion in the situation at all.

Glad to know that.

Still, no reason he couldn't be taken home to die if he could be transferred to another hospital to be disconnected.



posted on Jul, 28 2017 @ 05:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin

originally posted by: DBCowboy
Anyone who is heart-broken over this yet still supports government controlled healthcare is a damned fool.

In my opinion.

It was the government, not the parents, not the doctors, who mandated how and where and when Charlie Gard would die.


No it was the courts and doctors who made decisions regarding care

The government had nothing to do with this, zero!


Who runs your NHS and makes the rules your doctors have to follow?


Well actually its run by a Chief executive and a board made up of a verity of specialities.

The government might set certain targets such as nobody should wait 4 hours in a A&E department but its the people who work in the origination who actually make the rules which are usually based on clinical and operational research. For example the organisation might have a target to keep the number of hospital acquired pressure ulcers below a certain number but its not the government who dictates how that is to be done.

Actually really for the most part its the people who work in the NHS who have the skills and knowledge that make the rules, the government don't say what the rules are for what antibiotic should be used. They just set the targets things like waiting lists for certain operations but again these targets are actually made with the agreement of the NHS for the most part.

I don't know, I don't think you have a understanding of the NHS and to explain the ins and outs of it would take a long time.

Clinical governance is a very dry topic but its kind of interesting when you work in the NHS.
edit on 28-7-2017 by OtherSideOfTheCoin because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 28 2017 @ 05:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Painterz

In other words, Charlie Gard was a drain on resources so you favor pulling his plug. You have no compassion in the situation at all.

Glad to know that.

Still, no reason he couldn't be taken home to die if he could be transferred to another hospital to be disconnected.


ICU is full of ethical dilemmas

the problem is you have say 10 PICU beds, now these are highly specialised very expensive beds.

Now lets say you have 10 of them, they are all full, one of them has a kid like poor Charlie who has no chance of survival and is on a vet 24/7. So your beds are all full and then all of a sudden you get a call saying that there is another baby who urgently needs a PICU bed because he has a a severe allergic reaction to something and has just had to be intubated in the A&E department.

You have 10 beds, but 11 kids now who needs them, one of those kids has been on the vent for almost a year and has a incurable condition that he will die off soon as he is off the vent.

Those are pretty tough decisions to make.

what do you do, finite number of beds, lots of demand.

Its sad but its also a hard truth.
edit on 28-7-2017 by OtherSideOfTheCoin because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 28 2017 @ 05:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: InsaneIthorian

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: InsaneIthorian
a reply to: ketsuko

Yeah..... no one wants US healthcare system sorry. You can keep it.
Healthcare is a right in the UK the same as guns are your right.

France categorically is at the top of most categories for healthcare and provides for all.

Why the hell would we want the USA system that doesnt rank in the top 10 when you can adopt the best,


Health care is not a right.


Didn't bother with the rest of what you said because this is the key here.

In the UK it is. Maybe not the in the USA but in the UK it is.

Your guns are a right in the USA but not in the UK.

Rights are subjective from country to country and culture to culture.



We have healthcare you have guns.

Our country so we get to decide whats a right here, same as you get to decide whats a right in your country.



No it isn't a right in the UK.
It is a paid for service provided by the Govt - poorly, at that.



posted on Jul, 28 2017 @ 09:24 PM
link   
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

And they transferred him to another hospital to disconnect him ...

They area transferring him to hospice to disconnect him. They could just as easily transfer him to his home and do that. How long do they expect him to last once his support is turned off?

Obviously, it wasn't long, so it's not like the staff was going to be there for days. Instead it was minutes at most.

But no ... Charlie had to die in an institution because they know best and have no heart at all.



posted on Jul, 29 2017 @ 01:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko

Health care is not a right. You cannot call something a right when it is a service provided by another. Think long and hard about this one. If you depend on someone else to provide something you call a right, you are one short step away from declaring that person your slave because you have every right to the goods and/or services they produce that you have a right to.



Rights are determined by the society declaring them. There is nothing inherent about any right.

If a certain society determines that something will be a right accorded to all it's members, then so it is.
In a Democratic society, this is determined by majority vote.

It is an exchange. For the members active participation in the society (commerce, military...), their tax payment, they get certain rights in return.

In France, the majority wanted a top notch quality healthcare system that is multipayer and affordable in return for their participation. That's what they got. If what you want from your membership to your country is different, and you have it, great.

The only problem I percieve is countries that either do not let you leave to join a different one that might offer the kinds of rights you prefer as an individual (like North Korea) or if they make you pay taxes even if you leave (like the USA).

But more on track - incidents like this one should serve as examples for the members of the society to examine and consider whether they are getting what they would like from their nation or not.



posted on Jul, 29 2017 @ 01:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy


It was the government, not the parents, not the doctors, who mandated how and where and when Charlie Gard would die.


In such systems, it is the doctors who determine what is best for the patient. The court follows their expert opinion.

But the opinion of many doctors is solicited by the courts. These sorts of systems (socialist ones, as the mericans call them) are very democratic in nature. It is not because just one individual doctor wants to do something that it would be allowed, if the majority of doctors deem it to be dangerous or pain inflicting upon the patient.

In different systems, you have the right to be cheated, abused, neglected and experimented on by individuals and corporations without any backup protective system. I have a relative in the US who was experimented on by a doctor wanting to try a new surgical idea- ten years of corrective surgeries for that one and knowing he'll never walk again is the consequence. But he's fine with that freedom so all is well. There are some people in other countries that do not want to give individual doctors the right and freedoms to do that to them.

All depends on what you prefer.



posted on Jul, 29 2017 @ 08:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko

Who runs your NHS and makes the rules your doctors have to follow?



Doctors follow their own ethical rules they are human not gods they cannot

save the unsaveable.




Hippocratic Oath, Modern Version. I swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment, this covenant: I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow.


There is a limit to what they can achieve. I think they are bloody marvelous.



posted on Jul, 29 2017 @ 08:12 AM
link   
Truly sad case. Denial of treatment I can understand on a risk/reward/cost basis but parents should be entitled to seek treatment elsewhere without intervention if it's available to them. I think it's the almost total lack of empathy displayed that troubles most people. The system definitely kicked that poor family while it was down.



posted on Jul, 29 2017 @ 08:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko

In other words, Charlie Gard was a drain on resources so you favor pulling his plug. You have no compassion in the situation at all.


Where is your compassion for children that could maybehave been saved and

live if they had the resources which were being used by Charlie Guard, who from

what I have seen was never going to live. His eventual demise was only being

prolonged by science.



Still, no reason he couldn't be taken home to die if he could be transferred to another hospital to be disconnected.



I like to think the trained medical staff have the knowledge to make his passing

more comfortable.

Is this more about the parents or the patient?



posted on Jul, 30 2017 @ 09:21 AM
link   
The death of that child, simply because the EU and NATO secret services do not want to make use of latest technological developments in the field of medicine is an indication of complete failure of the west.




top topics



 
5
<< 1   >>

log in

join