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

I was speaking of doctors who are actually familiar with the case.

Most doctors most definitely don't support blindly testing new treatments on diseases they haven't even gone through animal testing on and that they aren't even designed to treat.

My concern is that a doctor isn't profiting off the feeling of two parents who can't come to grips with the fact that their child is going to die. If this doctor is really sincere about helping this child, why doesn't he do the work pro-bono?

 

Again I showed this on page 1 of this thread, are you saying you have been in ignorance of the facts since then?
http://metro.co.uk/2017/07/24/us-do...ys-great-ormond-street-6802891/#ixzz4npHdZC5P

 

Pro bono work is nice, but the parents can pay and should have been able to choose the licensed doctor to treat their child. There was never any good reason for anyone else to interfere with their choice.

The doctor has all the details of the child's condition "blind testing" has nothing to do with it,

 

The parents didn't want to pay. They wanted the British government to pay.

It is blind testing. This procedure has never been tested on anything, not even a lab rat, with the child's condition nor was it ever designed to treat said condition.

 

Dead link.

 

It is not "blind" it is targeted at this child's condition. People would generally prefer not to pay, but in this instance they can and are willing to pay.

So are you ready to admit that, for you anyway, this is all about the money?

 

It isn't targeted at this child's condition. The treatment isn't even designed to treat the condition the child has.

 

Works for me, are you saying you have not read the statement from GOSH?

 

Source.

 

It is a dead link.

 

I reference you to any of the dozens of links that HAVE ALREADY BEEN POSTED ON THIS SUBJECT in multiple threads on this forum.

 

Thanks, it explains a lot about what you have written that you are unaware of the facts. Come back to me when you are.

 

Did the parents choose a licensed doctor to treat their child? Yes.

All the rest is just the crude application of brute government force to kill a child and call it mercy.

 

No animal or human with Charlie’s condition, RRM2B deficiency (“RRM2B”), has been treated with NBT and therefore an application to the Rapid Response Clinical Ethics Committee was prepared in January. NBT was and is a possible treatment for GOSH patients suffering with TK2 deficiency (“TK2”), a similar genetic disorder, but there is a crucial difference between the two conditions. TK2 affects muscle (and is treated with 2 compounds) whereas RRM2B affects muscle, other organs and brain (and would be treated with 4 compounds – see GOSH’s Position Statement of 13 July
http://www.gosh.nhs.uk/news/latest-...tion-statement-issued-high-court-24-july-2017

 

Or you could paste up a good link or - horrors - a substantive coherent argument.

 

Tyvm, for going to the trouble of pasting that up.

Nevertheless, the parents chose a licensed doctor to treat their child. No one should have interfered in that decision. Certainly not without offering a better therapeutic option. "Mercy" killing is never a therapeutic option.

But "mercy" killing is, of course, a real option that governments will tend to find very attractive.
No mercy is involved, for either the parents or the child.

 

Mercy killing is a loaded tern for what actually occured which was a decision to remove life support that was artificially keeping the child alive. There was absolutly no hope of any significant enough improvement even in the childs muscles to allow a life off life support, never mind any improvement in the child brain or organ functioning.

The proposed treatment was almost a joke. It had never been tested even on animals and at best the doctor said it might have a ten percent chsnce of some improvement in muscle function.

Also note the child was on pain killers so no one can say for certain it was not suffering.

 

Mercy killing is accurate and to the point. That is why you think it is loaded.

 

Well maybe you are correct. Letting the baby die was an act of mercy.

 

I must have hit a nerve.

 

As opposed to "torture"? A "mercy" killing is supposed to be quick.

The state has seized the child from the parents, using its threat of deadly force. Government is not "letting" the child die - government is flexing its power to kill the child.

Acceptance of the notion that government is a humanitarian institution is astonishing considering the historical record.
I blame the schools, human beings have to be taught to ignore the obvious truth about the nature of government.

 

His whole comment looks like a copy and paste from dumb and dumber... It is amazing how stupid people can be... Idiots !

 

And see how horrendous the right is, to make it sound NOT real, that Gov't healthcare would ruin the system, that we need to keep things as they are and not media anybody dying in this country because they are poor. It is just amazing to me how many people will fall for the rhetoric... They are like puppets being controlled by the money interests... That Doc. like all others is in it for the money, few are there to actually help and most of those go oversea's where more help is needed...
I just can't get past all of this stuff and will have to forego reading and watching the news... It is just unbelieveable the BS going on... I look for ads soon on craigslist, will pay for marriage to obtain healthcare, please help, willing to give you ...XXXX>>>$ for marriage. Just so so sad..

 

This, and so true, but if you turn on Fox news it is played out opposite with the spin of A death panel. This is done to back the free system here that allows so many to get filthy rich. The dummies by into it as THEY ARE KILLING PEOPLE ELSEWHERE. ! That is fox news... People watch it exclusively... It is dumb down station for those that dont travel abroad, dont educate...