The English baby that the British health plan want to kill should tell everyone a lot

Private insurers answer to the marketplace. If they start making stupid decisions, the company goes out of business.

Government insurance bureaucrats answer to no one.

 

So, your answer is to double down on insensitivity? Who promoted you to deity status? Suppose that it's none of your business what, or why a family are acting the way they do. Surely, it doesn't effect or in any way impact you. Who are you to extoll their fate? This is exactly why socialism fails. These are decisions that frankly a government should never make or be involved in.

 

I care when parents inflict totally unnecessary torture and pain on their children. This child's fate was decided by nature. It's wrong to torture him when he is going to spend the rest of his life hooked up to machines with severe retardation from brain damage.

 

Thank you. I am not very familiar with the issue.

 

I notice that the left wingers that think abortion is ok, are willing to kill off this baby too.

 

About a third of what it costs now for US health care

If we have "death panels" how come we have a higher life expectancy and a lower infant mortality?

 

So do you feel that we should just pull the plug on all comatose patients that depend on machines to survive? They are not going to live a healthy happy fun life, just like Charlie. And while we are at this, what about non-comatose people who for some reason, are also not going to live a healthy, happy life? Can we kill them too?

 

This is not "suffering a bit" this is devastating and irreversible brain damage

 

It is done routinely even in America

I costs at MINIMUM $3,000 per day for a child in ICU. Are you going to pay that cost? How about for every hopeless case?
Would you prefer this
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby_K

Baby K was born without most of its brain but was kept alive by artificial means for more than 18 months.

 

No, I meant that the government reason for denying the mother and father the right to bring their child to the US for an experimental treat was that doing so would subject the child to suffer.

 

It was not the government but two independent courts

I think there is probably more to this

So for a start how are you going to get a ventilated child to the USA? You cannot put the baby and the ventilator on a commercial flight. Take it from me. You would have to hire life flight or similar and most of them do not do international flights

 

Not all comatose patients have zero chance of recovery or improvement like Charlie Gard does.

 

My point is that I am not comfortable with the idea of you (or some other authority) deciding whether a person has any chance of recovery, or whether they will be able to have healthy lives. Basically deciding someone's fate, if you will.

 

Excuse us? Nature said with polio or chicken mumps and all the rest said die kid die..what makes you think this is any different?


Yea we know the science is settled.



.

 

Which doctors do literally every day.

 

How do you know?


.

 

Polio and "chicken mumps" have a 100% fatality rate?

 

Because comatose patients regularly recover. People with the condition that Charlie has never do. It is 100% fatal in infants.

 

Give us a link doctors can legally kill people?

.

 

I am not sure if I am comfortable with this either but I admit it's better than the government.

 

Unless you have had a sick baby yourself, you can't know the agony that the parents (never mind the baby) are in. That doesn't make it okay to do prolong life artificially, but let's please be sympathetic to the poor baby and the parents.

 

So you are a denier? You really think we know everything their is to know about medicine ?


.

.

 

They take people off life support everyday. They fail in their efforts to perform life threatening procedures almost as often.

 

I had a sick baby myself according to the "experts" she is a healthy 20 year old.

 

Still no link , that they can do it all by themselves?


.