Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Single-Payer in U.K. Failed a Child

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Single-Payer in U.K. Failed a Child

    In the U.K., a one year old baby named Charlie Gard is now going to die because the single-payer system would not permit the child travel to the United States for the treatment and cure awaiting his arrival. The parents had to sue Parliament in order to permit the treatment because he was locked into mandated single-payer. If Charlie would have received treatment early after diagnosis, his life could have been saved but the protracted litigation will prohibit effective treatment. This IS a death panel system. Forgive me if I don't see the upside to it.

    #2
    Oh someone will be along shortly to inform you of the upside..theres plenty of that on here

    Comment


      #3
      Just sad. Prayers for that family. My real problem. ....why couldn't they let the family leave for better care??? Donations were paying for it.....not the u.k. or American taxpayers. Something don't add up!

      Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

      Comment


        #4
        The Holocaust started from the killing of one kid that had defects

        Comment


          #5
          Originally posted by Johnny44 View Post
          The Holocaust started from the killing of one kid that had defects
          Huh?


          Bob Lee

          Comment


            #6
            Originally posted by Livin'2hunt View Post
            In the U.K., a one year old baby named Charlie Gard is now going to die because the single-payer system would not permit the child travel to the United States for the treatment and cure awaiting his arrival. The parents had to sue Parliament in order to permit the treatment because he was locked into mandated single-payer. If Charlie would have received treatment early after diagnosis, his life could have been saved but the protracted litigation will prohibit effective treatment. This IS a death panel system. Forgive me if I don't see the upside to it.
            While I agree that it's ridiculous that the courts should be able to tell parents they can't get experimental treatments to help their child, I should point out that there is no "cure" for encephalomyopathic MDS as it's a genetic disorder.

            The experimental treatment (nucleotide bypass therapy) provides the building blocks of the genetic material that the body cannot produce due to the disorder. It does not correct the inability of the body to produce said material.

            Unfortunately it's only been tested on children with the TK2 gene mutation (if you google Arturo Estopinan Jr, you'll see what a child kept alive with the treatment has to endure), whereas Charlie has a RRM2B gene mutation (which also affects his brain). So there's no certainty the treatment would have a similar effect on Charlie (conversely, maybe it might have worked better; can't draw a conclusion with no data).

            Regardless, the treatment doesn't cause any problems, so it couldn't have hurt to try. I'm all for experimental medicine in such scenarios.

            Comment


              #7
              "Our son has an extremely rare disease for which there is no accepted cure, but that does not mean that this treatment would not have worked, and it certainly does not mean that this shouldn't have been tried."
              Absolutely.

              Hirano came to London last week to examine Charlie along with other experts. After seeing the results of new tests, the baby's parents agreed to drop their case, meaning Charlie's life support can now be removed.
              Cant imagine having to make that decision and it didn't come easily.
              They fought for Charlie.
              prayers sent.

              Comment


                #8
                I look at what I would have done if I were put that position with my child. Sure, it may not work. Then again, it may. For me, it is worth the gamble. My Gubmint would have to imprison me to keep me off that airplane.

                Comment


                  #9
                  Single payer worked exactly as it was designed to work. Individual decisions are severely limited if not eliminated altogether and decisions are made to the benefit of the "herd on the whole."

                  Comment


                    #10
                    I still don't understand why the parents couldn't take their child elsewhere for treatment??

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Originally posted by boy wonder View Post
                      I still don't understand why the parents couldn't take their child elsewhere for treatment??


                      It's my understanding that unlike in the US, a child's rights/decision trump their parents in the U.K. and many other countries. Because the child could not make a decision for themselves, it was under the jurisdiction of the courts to decide on behalf of the kid. The courts believed that it was in his best interest to have life support removed hence why the parents had to file an injunction to prevent that from happening.

                      Comment


                        #12
                        Time was not on Charlies side, but this started last November! !![emoji34] 5 weeks ago they wanted to come over the pond. The stinking courts said no......why? ??
                        My child, wife and I would be dead if this nation tried stopping us from searching for an answer on my own dime.....or donated funds from around the globe. Why would the government even want to intervene at all?? Just odd I tell ya!![emoji72]
                        Originally posted by boy wonder View Post
                        I still don't understand why the parents couldn't take their child elsewhere for treatment??
                        I concur![emoji35]

                        Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

                        Comment


                          #13
                          Originally posted by Kmart49 View Post
                          It's my understanding that unlike in the US, a child's rights/decision trump their parents in the U.K. and many other countries. Because the child could not make a decision for themselves, it was under the jurisdiction of the courts to decide on behalf of the kid. The courts believed that it was in his best interest to have life support removed hence why the parents had to file an injunction to prevent that from happening.
                          Wow! If that is a fact it is clearly saying that parents don't have the ability to raise a child. Now that would be communistic at worse and socialist at best. Really sad for a nation as old as England.[emoji15]

                          Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

                          Comment


                            #14
                            Originally posted by Landrover View Post
                            Wow! If that is a fact it is clearly saying that parents don't have the ability to raise a child. Now that would be communistic at worse and socialist at best. Really sad for a nation as old as England.[emoji15]

                            Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk


                            Here are a couple screen shots of some of the basic explanations behind the law.

                            Comment


                              #15
                              Originally posted by Kmart49 View Post
                              Here are a couple screen shots of some of the basic explanations behind the law.

                              Like I said.......communistic in nature.[emoji107] I know better than you......I'm the government! !![emoji19]

                              Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X