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.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Single-Payer in U.K. Failed a Child
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Livin'2hunt View PostIn 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.
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
-
"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."
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.
They fought for Charlie.
prayers sent.
Comment
-
Originally posted by boy wonder View PostI 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
-
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 PostI still don't understand why the parents couldn't take their child elsewhere for treatment??
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk
Comment
-
Originally posted by Kmart49 View PostIt'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.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk
Comment
-
Originally posted by Landrover View PostWow! 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
Comment