subgenius wrote:Will Kevin Graham and his butt-hurt posse please remind us all of how wonderful the UK healthcare system is? (You know like usual, with a blatant disregard for actual facts and stuff)
I don't know a lot about the Charlie Gard case, but what, exactly, were you expecting the US Healthcare system to do for him?
I don't recall ever conveying any such expectation in the OP. This is more about how patents who raised their own money are having their hope usurped by a court system that is serving and perpetuating a flaw in the UK health system. Or do you insist that the Gard family is up to their neck in free choice on this matter?
Seek freedom and become captive of your desires...seek discipline and find your liberty I can tell if a person is judgmental just by looking at them what is chaos to the fly is normal to the spider - morticia addams If you're not upsetting idiots, you might be an idiot. - Ted Nugent
subgenius wrote:a court system that is serving and perpetuating a flaw in the UK health system
How exactly? The UK's system of funding health care by universal provision funded by taxation has nothing to do with whether or not parents have the sole right to decide what happens to a dying child - which was the only issue before the courts in this case.
And as you know, the courts decided that the it was their duty to intervene to prevent further pointless suffering in pursuit of a very small possibility of a small prolongation of this child's painful life. Money did not come into it at any stage.
What has that got to do with 'a flaw in the UK health system'?
Zadok: I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis. Maksutov: That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
Chap wrote:What has that got to do with 'a flaw in the UK health system'?
I think the idea is that in a market-based healthcare system (which the USA kind-of is) a hospital would keep the baby on life support if the parents could write a check for it.
But in a system where there is no cost to patients (and their guardians), there has to be some other limit to care, and in this case it's the court system. Otherwise, there would be nothing stopping the parents from seeking any sort of expensive treatment and prolongation of life, regardless of the probable outcomes.
subgenius wrote:a court system that is serving and perpetuating a flaw in the UK health system
How exactly? The UK's system of funding health care by universal provision funded by taxation has nothing to do with whether or not parents have the sole right to decide what happens to a dying child - which was the only issue before the courts in this case.
And as you know, the courts decided that the it was their duty to intervene to prevent further pointless suffering in pursuit of a very small possibility of a small prolongation of this child's painful life. Money did not come into it at any stage.
What has that got to do with 'a flaw in the UK health system'?
cinepro wrote:I think the idea is that in a market-based healthcare system (which the USA kind-of is) a hospital would keep the baby on life support if the parents could write a check for it.
But in a system where there is no cost to patients (and their guardians), there has to be some other limit to care, and in this case it's the court system. Otherwise, there would be nothing stopping the parents from seeking any sort of expensive treatment and prolongation of life, regardless of the probable outcomes.
Thanks for trying to make sense of subgenius. I am reluctant to believe he is simply a chatbot, but I don't think your explanation is applicable. As I have pointed out repeatedly, at NO point was cost an issue in the court proceedings. There are people in the NHS system who have been on life support for very prolonged periods. And in this case the parents had raised the money to pay for their child to be flown to the US for the (highly) experimental treatment - experimental to the degree that it has not even been tested on a laboratory mouse with this child's condition.
The only issue has been whether the admittedly very small chance of any benefit to the child was sufficient to justify its continuation in a situation where the medical professionals believe it is undergoing significant suffering.
No care rationing issues of any kind were involved.
Zadok: I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis. Maksutov: That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
Listening to Erick Erickson and other Right Wing talking heads, you's think this was all about the Left's belief that individual lives have no meaning. That the State should be able to take control over your children, etc.
Hmmm. I wonder if these people would be equally concerned if a religious nut refused medical treatment to save the life of their child. You know, like Jehovah's Witnesses refusing blood transfusions to save their children's lives. This crap happens here and the Right Wing media is silent. Yet something happens on the other side of the world that can be spun to serve their political agenda and suddenly they're fear-mongering about it. Fine, if you actually believe this crap, but stop pretending you give a flying damn about the lives or well being of the children.
One after another, Dr. Paul Offit described the parents who prayed instead of getting their children the medical are they needed.
Herbert and Catherine Schaible prayed and prayed, but their 2-year-old son Kent died of pneumonia in Philadelphia 2009. It was bacterial pneumonia, and antibiotics could have saved him. They were convicted of child endangerment and involuntary manslaughter and placed on probation but horribly, the same thing happened again just four years later. In 2013, their 8-month old son Brandon died, again of bacterial pneumonia.
“We believe in divine healing, that Jesus shed blood for our healing and that he died on the cross to break the devil's power,” Herbert Schaible said in a 2013 police statement. Medicine, he said, “is against our religious beliefs.”
Why isn't Erickson talking about kids who die in this country because of his dumb religion?
Kevin Graham wrote:Listening to Erick Erickson and other Right Wing talking heads, you's think this was all about the Left's belief that individual lives have no meaning. That the State should be able to take control over your children, etc.
Hmmm. I wonder if these people would be equally concerned if a religious nut refused medical treatment to save the life of their child. You know, like Jehovah's Witnesses refusing blood transfusions to save their children's lives. This ____ happens here and the Right Wing media is silent. Yet something happens on the other side of the world that can be spun to serve their political agenda and suddenly they're fear-mongering about it. Fine, if you actually believe this ____, but stop pretending you give a flying damn about the lives or well being of the children.
Ceeboo wrote:After you type your posts, do you ever read them before you hit the "submit" tab?
If it is the case that certain persons (such as Erick Erickson) are falsely claiming to be upset about the plight of the children to whom they refer, and are simply using such cases for their propaganda value in slanderously suggesting that their political opponents set no value on human life, then I think it would be quite proper, indeed commendable, for KG to point that out.
Do you think he is wrong in suggesting that this is the case? You certainly don't have to agree with him, of course.
Zadok: I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis. Maksutov: That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
