posted July 02, 2017 12:44 PM            

We want our citizens to live, unlike the various Socialist health care systems which take an active part in killing their citizens.

So, take your Socialist Single Payer health care systems and shove them...find room to fit Michael Moore in too.

Single payer and Charlie Gard: When euthanasia becomes a duty
Ed Morrissey
June 29, 2017

When is death a duty? Two days ago, the European Court of Human Rights ruled in favor of doctors over the parents in a battle over a baby with a rare and fatal genetic disease. The ECHR followed rulings from British courts, declaring that doctors in the UK’s National Health Service could stop life support rather than allow the parents to bring Charlie Gard to the US for experimental treatment:

Born in August, Charlie Gard has a rare genetic disorder known as mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome. Caused by a genetic mutation, it leads to weakened muscles and organ dysfunction, among other symptoms, with a poor prognosis for most patients.

Charlie is on life support and has been in the intensive care unit at the Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children in London since October. His doctors wish to take him off life support, but his parents disagree.

Charlie’s parents, Chris Gard and Connie Yates, wanted the hospital to release Charlie into their custody so they can take him to the United States for an experimental treatment.

“The domestic courts concluded that it would be lawful for the hospital to withdraw life sustaining treatment because it was likely that Charlie would suffer significant harm if his present suffering was prolonged without any realistic prospect of improvement, and the experimental therapy would be of no effective benefit,” a press release from the court announcing the decision said.

The couple had raised nearly £1.4 million for that effort, which would have ended NHS involvement in the case, but the courts decided that they — and not the parents — were in position to decide that death rather than potential treatment was what was best for the child. Now the parents cannot even take the baby home to allow him to die there rather than in hospital, even though they pledged to cover all the costs:

Connie Yates and Chris Gard have been told by Great Ormond Street their son’s life support will be switched off tomorrow but he cannot leave the ward.

The couple’s ‘final wish’ for Charlie has been blocked and his mother Connie said today in a video for MailOnline: ‘We promised our little boy every single day that we would take him home’.

Mr Gard added: ‘We want to give him a bath at home, put him in a cot which he has never slept in but we are now being denied that. We know what day our son is going to die but don’t get a say in how that will happen’.

Note that there was no disagreement between the parents over the course of care they wanted for Charlie. The two of them have lived at the hospital with their baby, and have been equally united in their desire to try anything to save his life. This is not a dispute between relatives over who should have control over care (as was the issue in the Terri Schiavo case) but whether the state or the parents should have the final say. In a single-payer system such as NHS, the courts have clearly ruled that the state has more standing on whether to allow someone to die than the person or his/her nearest relations. And now, the state — through its socialized-medicine providers — refuse to even allow the death to take place under the circumstances desired by the family.

While this case does not directly relate to euthanasia laws, there is nonetheless a cultural and moral link to European embrace of utilitarian policies on life. In this case, neither the patient nor the family wanted an end to a life, but the state ruled that “compassion” demanded the withdrawal of life support even absent the need to conserve resources for care. Critics have long warned that the embrace of euthanasia would eventually transform it from a choice to a duty, and that certainly seems to be what happened in the tragic case of Charlie Gard.

National Review’s Ian Tuttle warns that we’ll see a lot more such cases in the future:

According to the Honourable Mr. Justice Nicholas Francis of the High Court’s Family Division, who authored the decision subsequently upheld by the higher courts, death is “in Charlie’s best interests.” There was no “scientific basis” for believing that Charlie would respond positively to the experimental American treatment; meanwhile, there is “unanimity among the experts from whom I have heard that nucleoside therapy cannot reverse structural brain damage.” “If,” wrote Justice Francis, “Charlie’s damaged brain function cannot be improved, as all agree, then how can he be any better off than he is now?” It was “with a heavy heart,” the judge said, that he sided with the doctors. Charlie should be permitted “to die with dignity.” In conclusion, Justice Francis praised the parents he had just overruled: “Most importantly of all, I want to thank Charlie’s parents for their brave and dignified campaign on his behalf, but more than anything to pay tribute to their absolute dedication to their wonderful boy, from the day that he was born.”

So it was that successive courts in the United Kingdom and in Europe simultaneously found that Connie Yates and Chris Gard had devoted themselves unhesitatingly to their son’s welfare for ten months, and also that Yates and Gard could not be trusted to act in their son’s best interests. …

The question, then, is not what would Charlie Gard want — a question no one can answer. The question is what do we owe to people such as Charlie, who cannot speak for themselves? What duty of care do we owe them simply on account of their being human beings, who are by nature possessed of an inalienable dignity? What obligations do we have to those who suffer, and how should we understand their suffering? And, pertinent to this case, under what circumstances should the tightest bonds of affection — those between parent and child — be subordinated to the judgment of the state?

The precedent established by Charlie Gard’s case will metastasize, as similar decisions have. It will be made to apply to children with more-familiar illnesses and better prognoses; it will be used to dismiss the input of parents whose values and priorities when it comes to medical care and end-of-life issues do not align with those of the state; it may be used simply to clear beds for “worthier” patients in a health-care system with very limited resources. This, presumably, will be “compassionate,” too.

Any day now, they’ll kill Charlie Gard. But it’s in his own best interest. Don’t you see?

posted July 04, 2017 02:03 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by jwhop:
Yeah, we pay more for "health care" in America.

We want our citizens to live, unlike the various Socialist health care systems which take an active part in killing their citizens.

---

posted July 04, 2017 03:30 PM            

The topic was not socialized medicine but you are well rehearsed (not to say informed) in demonizing that aren't you?

posted July 12, 2017 10:12 AM            

So, to all the little Marxists, Communists, Socialists and Progressives; when the totalitarians come for you to put you down, I don't want to hear even one peep of protest from you. When bureaucrats running your preferred single payer health care system decide you've lived long enough, just march yourself into one of their extermination chambers and keep your mouths firmly shut.

July 12, 2017
Charlie Gard: We are no longer Great Britain
Susan E. Bentley

Today I feel ashamed to be British. Little Charlie Gard appears to be under a death sentence courtesy of Great Ormond Street Hospital, the British Courts and with the agreement of papers such as the Guardian whose opinion is as expected ‘tripe’ (that’s a British dish of offal). The wonderful offers of help from all around the world have been awesome and deeply moving and in today’s Daily Mail Charlie’s mum explains how she first discovered her son's condition. I don’t know how anyone could be unmoved by such a story and I am sure anyone who is a mother will understand about Connie Yates' Mama Gard maternal instincts.

On Monday July 10, Judge Francis said the family had until 2 p.m. on Wednesday, July 12 to come up with fresh evidence that proves that an experimental treatment would be beneficial. Sadly that time is almost up.

The other thing that this story reveals and which disturbs me a great deal is the current state of Great Britain.

Why can’t Charlie be taken out of the country for the treatment so kindly offered by President Trump and the Pope? Apparently the British courts have the final say and the family has been refused a new judge. I feel like I have been asleep for many years and have suddenly woken up. During my Rip Van Winkle dozing, I have awoken to discover that I now live in a totalitarian state where the courts decide whether my child can live or die; where they can withhold medical treatment as and when they decide; where they can prevent treatment in another nation; where the rights of the individuals involved can be thrown on the floor and trashed like so much refuse.

My conclusion can only be we are no longer Great Britain but just another country being taken over by socialist, despotic ideologues.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2017/07/charlie_gard_we_are_no_longer_great_britain.html

posted July 12, 2017 04:40 PM            

The government should out-rightly draft/commission "hire" all doctors themselves, and place them into Service for The People of This Great Country.

The Education and Living costs for a doctor should become totally free, so that these can Serve without being 'worried' whether-or-not they make profits.

They will become more Valued than other professionals, including soldiers.

It would solve the Veteran's problem, as these too, were commissioned. The docs fix the wounds that the government leaders cause. They need good educated doctors to fix those mistakes.

That will make them BETTER doctors!
They'll be free to be MORE Focused on doing the BEST job they can-- not worried about money.

They will become like modern-day asteroid Vesta...
Keepers of the Flame-- The Heart.
Total Dedication of one's life.
Like committed monks and nuns work together in a convent?
They... These will be Doctors!!! *Honor Calling*

It should become a great HONOR and Calling for the individual (and family) if one CHOOSES to become...... "a Doctor".

posted July 16, 2017 01:23 PM            

In this one scene towards the end-- the senators had pulled a wicked power of deception and evil over people they had set up to 'take the fall' for wrongs they had morally perpetrated in the downfall of a foreign leader and nation.

They were sitting there, all sufficient in their own selves, gloating over their immoral victory, puffing on cigars-- NO conscience, HIDING under the false "mask" of the potential Honors of the elevated position of being senators---- when suddenly a bullet-shot came through the roof and splatted the one dead. Then the others began to scramble.

The one movie character QUICKLY slipped his sleezy self back INTO and Under the Protection of his 'being a Senator' and commanding and evoking his godhood through it.... when the next scenes unfolded (I can't remember what happened afterwards-- as I was busy at other home tasks.)

But I was SHOCKED with the REALITY of how they 'hide' under the pretense of wanting the Honor of their positions to supersede and cover up how VILE and self-serving they truly are. *crickets*

If you've read articles on how SWOLLEN these are with their OWN wealthiness? , then you'd realize that "they" DON'T need health care for themselves. They have Wealth in their bank accounts. They can PAY CASH for their own treatments and hospitalizations and surgeries.... of course, they would PREFER for 'insurance' to pay their bills, so they don't HAVE to spend their OWN money.

Same goes (over these past 3 or 4 generations?) for the ones who are reaching middle age now, with aging parents who had PAYED into the 'system' with it being time to reap the rewards from it.

*They* in govt are dismantling the WHOLE entitlement system that was PUT there to protect financial lacks and holes and emergencies.

*They* don't CARE if people die now. It's like a 'natural death cleansing' of all the people who 'can't make it' on their own. It's a way to *decrease the surplus population* (Dickens' Scrooge).. a cleansing of society through death to those who can't work, therefore can't eat, therefore (in THEIR philosophy) don't DESERVE to Live anymore.

When you have expended your "usefulness" in society now, you die.

The middle-agers are being put into a position of forfeiting their houses, etc, IF they LOVE their parents. ... Many of them do not. They are 'detached'. They will "vote" to keep their home and treasure, and "allow" their parent to die. Or, their kin and family who fall on hard times. ... Callin' in karma, if they are in spiritual-sects who believe that way..... Life doesn't 'matter' when you are soooo detached? You merely pop-into a new body in your next life? Why keep living in a 'house'(body) that is too old, too infirmed, too weak, can't figure things out for their OWN self, being 'not-enough', being not-valuable, not loved-enough to have your life spared???

.....

It's so covert, so Twisted... yes. I know.

Who will live? *echo*

.....

These right now are making 'unintended consequences' ... that will affect the prosperity of this nation.

With so many people only a few paychecks away from poverty and homelessness (you NEVER know what can happen, EVEN to the richest folk .... 'There, but for the Grace of God, go I???') it IS an isolating and very FRIGHTENING reminder to them, to US, that if WE cannot put our Humanity on the FRONT of our decisions and votes... then sooo many will perish.

Think about it?

(I saw that article about the wealthy people in California "complaining" that their government isn't doing enough for them... and they want their tax-monies restored to them for it.)

You don't provide for people (in your OVER surplus) what you yourself 'bask' in? (Good home, good rest, good food, family-base networking, -- which gives you extra strength in your health therefore body?) ...then, you will have hunger in the streets, and bring things back to a criminal society of persons struggling and thieving and drugs and gangs.

People will be rotting (with lack of hygiene, leading to skin diseases, and intestinal defecation problems, that will run PLAGUES, and pneumonias and lung things.... like what we saw in early 1900s, and even before that... ).

It might be resonating some of the stories of Moses, and how Death can touch EVEN the richest folks through pestilence and spread of disease through lack of better hygiene. Good sleep. Good rest. Good food. Good homes. ... Which lead to support a person, so they can work, and find their place in society, and be a Blessing to themselves and the people they network with.

If you don't have good health????
Your prosperity is tied directly to it.
Not just the prosperity of one, but through Ripples, the Village.

Taking Care of other people's bodies, is another 'selfish' way for *them* to KEEP their OWN Prosperity blooming.

If they make the *selfish* decision to withhold NOW... what people sorely need, then *they* will have a world full of suffering, and debilitations, that will affect them in the Long-term.

We are ALL in this atmosphere together.
What affects one, starts to affect some, then the whole.

Give, then it Gives Back to you.
Take away?, then, you will lose EVEN what you have.