Charlie Gard

[Mediumrarechicken]

ER care for simple sickness is definitely the most cost effective way to currently handle those who don't have the ability to see a doctor for routine checkups and preventative care.

Your sarcasm I sense it. You and I both know that if someone that doesn't have insurance had has a head gash, broken arm or whatever, they will get taken care of and not turned away. They can also go to an urgent care center, pay a co pay and set up payments(if they need to) if they want a check up

[z31maniac]

marshall, george, sushichicken

I'm assuming you all self-insure your vehicles (in OK that would mean having a minimum of $100k in liquid assets that are specifically for insurance, and if you cause more damage, better be ready to come out of your own pocket or go to court)? Sent your children to private school?

Car insurance is the exact same as health insurance, everyone pays in to lower the cost for everyone.

If you didn't send your children to private school, did you make sure to donate to the school district what it actually cost per year per child to educate them?

Even in OK, that works out to an average of $7500 per student, per year. The vast majority of middle and lower class people would no longer be able to afford to send their children to school.

[LBJefferies]

I'm really tired of you far righties only liking certain types of Socialism.

One of my favorite pastimes while in the Air Force was to point out to other Airmen that they were a member of one of the most socialist organizations on the planet...the US Military. The typical response was to stare at me blankly then call ME the idiot because of course the US Military isn't socialist. They just couldn't wrap their heads around it.

[BraveUlysses]

It was a decision over cost. It stinks, is immoral, and unethical, as is most socialized medicine.

it was not a decision based on money, you dolt

[z31maniac]

I'm really tired of you far righties only liking certain types of Socialism.

[z31maniac]

Does this country not take care of a homeless person that staggers to the ER?

We all know,they don't turn them away. Quit playing that card

ER care for simple sickness is definitely the most cost effective way to currently handle those who don't have the ability to see a doctor for routine checkups and preventative care.

[Schnitzer318is]

I am not a medical ethicist or expect in the law of medical ethics in the UK, but I am a practicing physician...........

Based on my knowledge of the case that withdrawing care and making Charlie comfortable seems to be the most ethical, moral and sensible decision in this case.

Thank you for chiming in. I am not in the medical field (though I did coding in another life), and am certainly not a physician, but your thoughts confirmed my layman's understanding of the case. And by relation reaffirmend my position on the parent's decisions and the course of action the hospital and courts took.

[cale]

Weird, when I was between jobs I had some crazy growth and infection in my belly button. Seems i went to a doctor and went and had surgery. I'm so sick of people spouting off the " oh if you don't have a job you can't go to the doctor!!!" Bullshit. Does this country not take care of a homeless person that staggers to the ER?



We all know,they don't turn them away. Quit playing that card

It's definitely this simple.

[coldweatherblue]

Respectfully you're wrong, and here's why:
Doctors are bound to do no harm. They have every right to refuse to offer treatments, etc. And the parents at the same time have the right to seek other opinions and treatment for their child.

But in this case the state medical bureaucracy took away the decision from the parents, preventing them from seeking treatment in the USA.

You may agree with the state's decision, but it stepped in and took away the right of the parents for doing what they thought best, when the had the means and tteatment was available.

It was a decision over cost. It stinks, is immoral, and unethical, as is most socialized medicine.

I am not a medical ethicist or expect in the law of medical ethics in the UK, but I am a practicing physician.

Parents do not always have the final say regarding their child's medical treatment. If the parents are attempting to do something that may harm the child, the hospital/physicians have responsibility to prevent that from happening.

I don't know the medical details of the Charlie Gard case because I haven't reviewed the chart, but from what I can tell the medical staff deemed further care of this terminally ill child to be futile and advised hospice care to reduce further suffering. This is definitely something I deal with nearly every day (in adults thankfully). The parents refused to accept this and requested transfer to the US for an experimental, largely ineffective treatment. The hospital/physicians felt that the danger of transport for an unproven treatment would be more likely to harm the child than help.

If you are not in medicine/health-care this may be difficult to understand but is actually a very sensible decision in the face of our own mortality.

The fact that this happened in the UK has little to do with it, other than Charlie will probably suffer less than if he'd been in the US (see the Jahi McMath case).

Regardless of what you think, medical professionals have the right to supersede parental wishes. If a febrile neonate is brought into my ER then the parents decide to leave AMA without admission/lumbarpuncture/spinal tap, I have the sheriff's deputy escort parents out, get a court order for treatment, and proceed as necessary. Have never had to do that but that's a well known example.

Like I said, I don't know the details of the case, but from what I've read, this is not a situation where inappropriate care was delivered based on concerns for cost: this is a case where parents refuse to listen to medical professionals and attempt to prolong unnecessary suffering through futile medical care, using media outlets to further their cause. The NHS had little to do with it.

FWIW the neurologist from the US who was offering the treatment recently examined Charlie and withdrew his offer to treat afterwards because he deemed the case futile.

Based on my knowledge of the case that withdrawing care and making Charlie comfortable seems to be the most ethical, moral and sensible decision in this case.

[Mediumrarechicken]

Dude, this is the same exact way that insurance companies operate and the same sorts of decisions are made by doctors here in the US. The only real difference is that anyone in the UK, whether they have a job or not, can go see a doctor. That's the only real difference.

Weird, when I was between jobs I had some crazy growth and infection in my belly button. Seems i went to a doctor and went and had surgery. I'm so sick of people spouting off the " oh if you don't have a job you can't go to the doctor!!!" Bullshit. Does this country not take care of a homeless person that staggers to the ER?



We all know,they don't turn them away. Quit playing that card

[LBJefferies]

It was a decision over cost. It stinks, is immoral, and unethical, as is most socialized medicine.

Dude, this is the same exact way that insurance companies operate and the same sorts of decisions are made by doctors here in the US. The only real difference is that anyone in the UK, whether they have a job or not, can go see a doctor. That's the only real difference.

[gwb72tii]

I would say that in this case the physicians caring for Mr. Gard are attempting to prevent further harm by the parents, who momentarily have forgotten humans are mortal and will all eventually perish. The physicians who have a legal and fiduciary duty to care for Mr. Gard have uniformly decided that transport would amount to unnecessary harm to their patient, and are acting in the child's best interests to prevent harm.

This is not an example of healthcare decisions being left to the state. The decisions are made by the medical doctors caring for the patient; they only have to rely on the state because the parents are being delusional. As a society we need to learn to accept inevitable death in the face of overwhelming odds rather than use media avenues to exploit children for the sake of our own delusions.

Respectfully you're wrong, and here's why:
Doctors are bound to do no harm. They have every right to refuse to offer treatments, etc. And the parents at the same time have the right to seek other opinions and treatment for their child.

But in this case the state medical bureaucracy took away the decision from the parents, preventing them from seeking treatment in the USA.

You may agree with the state's decision, but it stepped in and took away the right of the parents for doing what they thought best, when the had the means and tteatment was available.

It was a decision over cost. It stinks, is immoral, and unethical, as is most socialized medicine.

[BraveUlysses]

The poor kid is a lost cause being used as a pawn for political posturing

exactly

[coldweatherblue]

Baloney, it's not a complex decision whatsoever. It is immoral and unethical for anyone but the parents to have a decision in this. There are laws preventing abuse of the child, of the parents making irrational decisions not in the child's best interests.The decision should be left with them.

This is a slippery slope that should concern anyone that believes their healthcare decisions are better left to the state and some faceless bureaucrat.

I would say that in this case the physicians caring for Mr. Gard are attempting to prevent further harm by the parents, who momentarily have forgotten humans are mortal and will all eventually perish. The physicians who have a legal and fiduciary duty to care for Mr. Gard have uniformly decided that transport would amount to unnecessary harm to their patient, and are acting in the child's best interests to prevent harm.

This is not an example of healthcare decisions being left to the state. The decisions are made by the medical doctors caring for the patient; they only have to rely on the state because the parents are being delusional. As a society we need to learn to accept inevitable death in the face of overwhelming odds rather than use media avenues to exploit children for the sake of our own delusions.

[Schnitzer318is]

making irrational decisions not in the child's best interests.The decision should be left with them.

This is exactly what they are doing by keeping the child alive, in a vegetative state. Making an irrational decision not in the best interest of the child.

And I understand dementia/Alzheimer's situations as well. Unfortunately it runs in the family which is one of the hugely formative influences that drives my positions on these types of situations.

And as I clarified, I am not for the state making these decisions for the parents... though, as I conceded, it did sound that way. My point is, they are making the wrong decision. The state did not kill the child, but ruled that it would not be in his best interest to move him to another facility. The doctors caring for him withdrew their support of trying any experimental treatments after another round of seizures in Dec/Jan rendered him no longer a candidate. The poor kid is a lost cause being used as a pawn for political posturing and perhaps (most likely), the notoriety of his situation is being used to further the careers/fame of some looking to take advantage.