Well the socialized medicine death panel did their dirty deed in England

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by logical1, Jul 25, 2017.

  1. logical1

    logical1 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2011
    Messages:
    25,426
    Likes Received:
    8,068
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    In England the death panel comprised of judges and socialized medicine doctors handed out a death sentence to the English baby. They screw around for at least 5 months, and now he is brain dead. If they would have allowed him to come to the US 5 months or more ago for treatment, he might well be on his way to recovery.

    This is a true life adventure in government controlled medicine. Or probably a more true statement would be ------------this is a true death adventure in government controlled medicine.

    When will the left realize that government controlled medicine just doesnt work. Look at the life expectancy on an American Indian reservation. For men it is 48 years and for women it is 52 years. Also look at the VA and that can of worms with the government running it.
    How many Vets have died trying to get the health care they need.

    The bottom line here is there is so much money for health care. If part of it is spent on b'crats in Washington, that is less care for people that need it. And of course not to mention their death panels.
     
    Last edited: Jul 25, 2017
    ButterBalls and Ddyad like this.
  2. RiaRaeb

    RiaRaeb Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2014
    Messages:
    10,698
    Likes Received:
    2,469
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Again this had nothing to do with private v public medicine, you simply do not understand that in Europe the rights of the child can trump the rights of the parents.

    The child was not allowed to suffer further pain at the hands of a US magic potion salesmen!
     
    Last edited: Jul 25, 2017
    VietVet, The Bear and Derideo_Te like this.
  3. logical1

    logical1 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2011
    Messages:
    25,426
    Likes Received:
    8,068
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Then if the child had rights, why didnt English socialized medicine send him to the US 5 or 6 months ago where he might have been cured. Read some news, the US doctor has helped several babies with the same problem.
     
    Ddyad likes this.
  4. logical1

    logical1 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2011
    Messages:
    25,426
    Likes Received:
    8,068
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    So---------------you are saying the child had a right to die?????????????
     
    Ddyad likes this.
  5. RiaRaeb

    RiaRaeb Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2014
    Messages:
    10,698
    Likes Received:
    2,469
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No you read some news, the US doctor had treated no one with this particular disease type, not even mice!
     
    The Bear and Derideo_Te like this.
  6. RiaRaeb

    RiaRaeb Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2014
    Messages:
    10,698
    Likes Received:
    2,469
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That is right, he had the right to die rather than be used as a lab rat by a magic potion salesmen!
     
  7. RiaRaeb

    RiaRaeb Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2014
    Messages:
    10,698
    Likes Received:
    2,469
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And the socialized "death panel" invited this magic potion salesperson to examine the child in January, he never bothered to do so until July, guess there was not enough money in it!
     
    The Bear likes this.
  8. RiaRaeb

    RiaRaeb Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2014
    Messages:
    10,698
    Likes Received:
    2,469
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Here read the court statement from the dedicated doctors at GOSH,

    At the first hearing in Charlie’s case in March, GOSH’s position was that every day that passed was a day that was not in his best interests. That remains its view of his welfare. Even now, Charlie shows physical responses to stressors that some of those treating him interpret as pain and when two international experts assessed him last week, they believed that they elicited a pain response. In GOSH’s view there has been no real change in Charlie’s responsiveness since January. Its fear that his continued existence has been painful to him has been compounded by the Judge’s finding, in
    April, that since his brain became affected by RRM2B, Charlie’s has been an existence devoid of all benefit and pleasure. If Charlie has had a relationship with the world around him since his best interests were determined, it has been one of suffering.

    Throughout, his parents’ hopes have been sustained by advice received from overseas. Mitochondrial disorders comprise a specialised and small international field. The experts in that field meet, collaborate and exchange ideas on a very regular basis and it is that valued collaboration that allows progress to be made and patients to be provided with the best possible care. Professor Hirano (“the Professor”), whose laboratory research has an international reputation, is very well known to the experts at GOSH and he communicated with them about NBT treatment for Charlie at the very end of December. In January, GOSH invited the Professor to come and see Charlie. That invitation remained open at all times but was not taken up until 18 July after being extended, once again, this time by the Court.

    In the months between January and July, the Professor provided written and oral evidence for the best interests hearing in April and, after the Court decided that NBT was not in Charlie’s best interests, he went on to provide further written evidence for the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court. Most recently, on 6 July, he co-signed the letter indicating that he had new information that changed the picture for Charlie, that brought this case back before the High Court.

    When the hospital was informed that the Professor had new laboratory findings causing him to believe NBT would be more beneficial to Charlie than he had previously opined,GOSH’s hope for Charlie and his parents was that that optimism would be confirmed. It was, therefore, with increasing surprise and disappointment that the hospital listened to the Professor’s fresh evidence to the Court. On 13 July he stated that not only had he not visited the hospital to examine Charlie but in addition, he had not read Charlie’s contemporaneous medical records or viewed Charlie’s brain imaging or read all of the second opinions about Charlie’s condition (obtained from experts all of whom had taken the opportunity to examine him and consider his records) or even read the Judge’s decision made on 11 April. Further, GOSH was concerned to hear the Professor state, for the first time, whilst in the witness box, that he retains a financial interest in some of the NBT compounds he proposed prescribing for Charlie. Devastatingly, the information obtained since 13 July gives no cause for optimism. Rather, it confirms that whilst NBT may well assist others in the future, it cannot and could not have assisted Charlie.

    In the months ahead, all at GOSH will be giving careful thought to what they can learn from this bruising court case that might enrich the care it provides to its most vulnerable patients and families. It is hoped that those who, like the Professor, have provided the opinions that have so sustained Charlie’s parents, their hopes and thus this protracted litigation with its many consequences, will also find much upon which to reflect.

    GOSH is a tertiary referral centre and a centre of research excellence. It celebrates and enthuses about gene therapy and experimental treatment of all types. But it also believes in its patients as people. The hospital strives to work with children and parents to strike a balance of treatment benefits and burdens that combines evidence and compassion.

    Where that balance falls ethically in favour of pioneering treatment, GOSH shares each family’s excitement at the journey that follows. GOSH believes that novel therapies are best provided in the context of formal clinical trials. The hospital does not treat its most vulnerable children simply because it can and on no account does it treat them purely because novel treatment furthers GOSH’s research.

    All of GOSH’s thoughts go with Charlie and his mother and father – the hospital wishes each of them peace in their hearts at the end of this day and each day to come.



    Read more: http://metro.co.uk/2017/07/24/us-do...ys-great-ormond-street-6802891/#ixzz4npHdZC5P
     
    The Bear and Derideo_Te like this.
  9. Steady Pie

    Steady Pie Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2012
    Messages:
    24,506
    Likes Received:
    7,247
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Children should be possessions of the state. The family unit is inherently misogynist.
     
    Liberty4Ransom and Ddyad like this.
  10. RiaRaeb

    RiaRaeb Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2014
    Messages:
    10,698
    Likes Received:
    2,469
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You are of course quite entitled to that opinion, however much of the rest of the world believes children are individuals, their rights ultimately protected by the state, as are everyone's.
     
    OldGuy?wise, The Bear and Derideo_Te like this.
  11. Steady Pie

    Steady Pie Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2012
    Messages:
    24,506
    Likes Received:
    7,247
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    They are not individuals, they are individual production units. They must be kept away from their "family" ie hate group and raised under ideal conditions to produce tax receipts for the benevolent state.

    This is best for everyone.
     
  12. RiaRaeb

    RiaRaeb Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2014
    Messages:
    10,698
    Likes Received:
    2,469
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You could actually debate the points raised, but if you would rather create some bizarre idea of what you imagine the UK to be go ahead, is is amusing.
     
  13. truth and justice

    truth and justice Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2011
    Messages:
    25,730
    Likes Received:
    8,772
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That US doctor has not helped any babies with the same problem and it has just been disclosed that he did not even see the baby before making his claims.
     
    The Bear, Derideo_Te and RiaRaeb like this.
  14. TCassa89

    TCassa89 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2013
    Messages:
    9,056
    Likes Received:
    3,691
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That's not what happened at all, the experimental treatment that is being proposed is FOR the child's brain damage. In other words, this experimental treatment is being proposed (for a large sum of money) to treat the brain dead child. They are looking to restore a damaged brain. You're making it sound as if this child is brain dead because he was denied experimental treatment, when in fact the child is being offered experimental treatment because he is brain dead.

    I should also note that this experimental procedure has never successfully been done on a patient with this child's conditions. If the procedure actually worked, it would be a major medical breakthrough.
     
    Last edited: Jul 25, 2017
    Derideo_Te likes this.
  15. RiaRaeb

    RiaRaeb Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2014
    Messages:
    10,698
    Likes Received:
    2,469
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And of course the doctor declined the invitation of the hospital to examine the child from early January until mid July.
     
  16. TCassa89

    TCassa89 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2013
    Messages:
    9,056
    Likes Received:
    3,691
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That is correct, the doctor who offered the treatment had never visited or examined the child himself, and admitted that he had a financial interest in the compounds he proposed proscribing the child. It is also important to note that the only reason the child was to be removed from life support was because the doctors who examined him had concluded that he had no chance of recovery. He would have to spend the rest of his life in a hospital bed having machines feed him and breath for him.

    It was the doctors who had decided it would be more humane to remove the child from life support, it had nothing to do with the patient's insurance provider
     
    Last edited: Jul 25, 2017
    RiaRaeb and Derideo_Te like this.
  17. Steady Pie

    Steady Pie Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2012
    Messages:
    24,506
    Likes Received:
    7,247
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Not at all, that's just how the world ought to be.
     
  18. For Topical Use Only

    For Topical Use Only Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2011
    Messages:
    8,308
    Likes Received:
    2,290
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Socialized medicine, death panels, and dirty deeds?

    Yep, another fine, considered, humane, intelligent thread.
     
    The Bear likes this.
  19. verystormy

    verystormy Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2010
    Messages:
    444
    Likes Received:
    30
    Trophy Points:
    28
    You really need to travel a bit more and see some of the world and maybe you would understand the world a bit better.
    The only death panels that exist are in countries in the USA where you have politicians currently deciding how many poor people shall be sacrificed in the name of profit for insurance companies.

    In this babies case, one of the most highly regarded children's hospitals in the world, ran by some of the worlds best experts in child medicine deduced that the child could not be helped but that on going treatment would not only not benefit the child, but that it would cause the child suffering. As a result, the hospital applied to the highest court in the country to rule.
    The court heard a huge amount of evidence and based on that - including hearing from opinion on a possible treatment which has not had any testing to say it would help and being promoted by a doctor with a large financial interest in it, decided that it was not in the child's interest. In the UK in such a case, the interest of the child is first and paramount.
     
    Montegriffo, The Bear and RiaRaeb like this.
  20. The Bear

    The Bear Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2016
    Messages:
    610
    Likes Received:
    461
    Trophy Points:
    63
    I find it disgusting that the OP used the death of a child to promote his own political beliefs,and in doing so ignoring the testimony before the court.
    The parents and family of the child have gone through enough trauma without the addition of ignorant posts on the internet.
     
    VietVet and RiaRaeb like this.
  21. logical1

    logical1 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2011
    Messages:
    25,426
    Likes Received:
    8,068
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Dont like the results of socialized medicine, dont vote for liberals. They are the ones that want the power of life and death over other people.
     
    IMMensaMind likes this.
  22. RiaRaeb

    RiaRaeb Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2014
    Messages:
    10,698
    Likes Received:
    2,469
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This is not the result of socialized medicine, but you do not appear to want to debate, just accuse without evidence and make things up. Now how explaining how Charlie Gard would of been saved by private medicine, when this case is about the rights of the child?
     
    The Bear and VietVet like this.
  23. VietVet

    VietVet Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2017
    Messages:
    4,198
    Likes Received:
    4,859
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    That is true of this poster 99% of the time....

    Thread after meaningless thread...:blahblah:
     
    The Bear and RiaRaeb like this.
  24. IMMensaMind

    IMMensaMind Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2017
    Messages:
    3,659
    Likes Received:
    1,970
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    An inconsistency continues in this prog narrative. If the child was brain dead, how does he feel pain? Progs are constantly justifying this State decision because it's supposedly "cruel and unusual" to allow Charlie to continue to experience pain. If Charlie is brain dead, how is it 'cruel and unusual' to simultaneously provide hope (scant as it would be) to the family, as well as take advantage of an opportunity to allow scientific advancement wrt treating this extremely rare condition?

    Someone answer for me how a brain dead person feels pain.
     
    Ddyad likes this.
  25. Deckel

    Deckel Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2014
    Messages:
    17,608
    Likes Received:
    2,043
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Did this death panel give a child a terminal condition? There was no recovery possible in this case. Prolonging his life was the only realistic scenario and the chances of that happening ended when he started having major seizures.
     
    The Bear likes this.

Share This Page