posted July 02, 2017 10:54 AM            

Charlie Gard is a 10-month-old boy who is on life support because he is dying of a rare genetic condition. If he lived in America he’d have a chance of surviving. Unfortunately, he lives in Great Britain. (Editor’s note: Lloyd Billingsley has also weighed in on this story.)

Charlie has a form of mitochondrial disease which causes muscle weakness and brain damage. His parents, Chris Gard and Connie Yates, have raised about US$ 1.8 million for treatment in America that might save Charlie’s life. But both physicians and judges in Britain have decreed that the treatment won’t work and that Charlie should be “allowed” to “die with dignity.”

Yes, you read that right.

Chris and Connie are willing to spend their own money to put Charlie on a plane and fly to America to receive treatment that might save his life. But the British medical and court systems have taken that decision out of their hands.

Making the situation even crueler, the physicians at Great Ormond Street Hospital in London, where Charlie is being treated, will not let Charlie’s parents take him home after they remove him from life support, which was supposed to occur today.

This sort of sinister hubris is not an isolated incident. About a decade ago, Alice Mahon, a member of parliament, needed the drug Lucentis to keep from going blind. Britain’s single-payer system, known as the National Health Service (NHS), refused to provide it for her. She went blind in her left eye.

More recently, a report from Macmillan Cancer Support found that the NHS denies cancer treatment to roughly 14,000 elderly patients annually because they are too old.

Clearly, taking the decision out of the hands of patients and their family is a feature of Britain’s National Health Service, not a bug.

Health care has to rationed, and in a system like the NHS that is largely controlled by politicians, it has to be rationed in a way that does not threaten politicians’ reelection chances. That means it will be rationed by delaying or denying care to those who are most ill. The reason is that people who are seriously ill are relatively few in number, being part of a group that is too small to threaten politicians on election day. Indeed, some people are so ill that, conveniently for politicians, they won’t be around for the next election. And, now, apparently, some patients will never even reach voting age.

Another reason that systems like the NHS harm people like Charlie is that they are magnets for the “anointed” – people who think they are entitled to make decisions for other people. The anointed are attracted to command-and-control systems like the NHS because they pay little to no cost if the decisions they make are wrong and they have the power of government at their disposal to enforce those decisions.

In this particular case, Charlie will pay the biggest costs, pain and death, if the decision made is wrong. Since Charlie is in no position to make a decision, it should fall to his parents since they pay the next biggest cost. It is that cost—the agony of seeing Charlie suffer and die—that gives his parents the biggest incentive to make the right decision.

Will the physicians and judges who imposed this monstrous decision pay any sort of cost, such as losing their jobs? Of course not. They are public employees which makes it nearly impossible to fire them. Rather, their careers and their lives will continue much the same as they are now regardless of whether Charlie lives or dies.

Since a single-payer system causes people to die, it is ironic that a politician like Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) wants the U.S. health care system to emulate Britain’s. Ironic because lately Sanders and other senators have made it fashionable to claim that the Republican health care plan before the Senate will cause people to die.

posted July 02, 2017 05:38 PM            

More disinformation?

Socialist NHS kills. Socialist NHS deliberately, intentionally and wilfully kills patients...against their will and against the will of their families. That's NICE but NICE isn't nice at all. Let's call this what it really is. MEDICAL MURDER BY DECREE

In the case of this family, all they wanted was to fly their baby to America for treatment. In other words, to a country which had cures for serious illness or disease. DENIED, DENIED, DENIED

The reason they were denied was to prevent that baby from being cured. Wouldn't want egg all over Socialist faces...after they said the baby is terminal.

People with cancer are terminal. People with heart attacks are terminal. People with stroke are terminal. They're all terminal...without proper treatment.

posted July 03, 2017 06:33 AM            

Charlie Gard is just the latest manifestation of "Murderous Socialism".

July 3, 2017
The Death Spiral of Socialism
Eileen F. Toplansky

The total abrogation of personal autonomy for the parents of baby Charlie Gard as courts in the United Kingdom and in Europe simultaneously and arbitrarily decided what his parents can and cannot do for their extremely ill child is another symptom of the chilling or, should I say, killing world of socialism.

In his 2004 collection of readings for the humanities titled Being Human, editor Leon Kass writes about Russian dissident Vladimir Bukovsky who was held in the USSR as a political prisoner from 1963 until his release in 1976. Kass writes that "Bukovsky reflects on the 'soul of man under socialism,' this 'new type of man' who is subject to totalitarian rule." Bukovsky ponders what it "means to retain one's human dignity as a citizen of a state" when socialists demand a dream of universal equality while ensuring the "suppression and ultimate destruction of the individual, in body and in spirit."

And while the pervasive rallying cry of socialists is “equality,” Bukovsky writes that "the defining characteristics of a socialist regime is that 'the individual may not possess the least inalienable right' and that the system requires 'slaves, not conscious citizens.'"

Thus, "the regime is immovable, infallible, and intransigent, and the entire world is left with no choice but to accommodate itself to this fact."

Despite the fact that the Gards raised money to continue treatment for their baby, the European powers-to-be have denied them this choice. To add salt to the wound, they cannot even take their child home to die.

Ms. Yates said: 'We've been talking about what palliative care meant. One option was to let Charlie go home to die. We chose to take Charlie home to die. That is our last wish. We promised our little boy every single day that we would take him home.'

His father Chris, 32, said: 'Our parental rights have been stripped away. We can't even take our own son home to die. We've been denied that. Our final wish [was] if it all went against us can we take our little boy home to die and we are not allowed.

'They even said no to a hospice.'

The couple, who have previously lost battles in the High Court, Court of Appeal and Supreme Court, claim they also asked doctors to allow them a final weekend with Charlie but say this request has been denied.

'We begged them to give us the weekend,' Ms. Yates said, 'Friends and family wanted to come and see Charlie for the last time. But now there isn't even time for that. Doctors said they would not rush to turn off his ventilator but we are being rushed.

'Not only are we not allowed to take our son to an expert hospital to save his life, we also can't choose how or when our son dies.'

Bukovsky writes that in "a regime of terror the individual cannot have any rights -- the least inalienable right possessed by a single individual instantly deprives the regime of a morsel of power. Every individual from childhood on must absorb the axiomatic fact that never in any circumstances or by any means will he be able to influence the regime one jot."

In fact, "socialized medicine's killing isn't just about money, but power." As Daniel Greenfield explains, "it would have cost the NHS less to allow his parents to take Charlie to America" but this would have sent the "message that socialized medicine is flawed." It would expose the horrible underbelly of the socialist regime.

Yet far too many still do not understand that we can never "acquire freedom and security, until we refuse categorically to recognize this paranoid [socialist] version of reality and oppose to it our own reality and our own values."

"Moral opposition" is critical as government control becomes all consuming. But it is frightening that so many millennials who have not been educated on this "ism" are found to favor it. Bukovsky writes that "it is difficult for man to resist this dream and this noble impulse, particularly for men who are impetuous and sincere." But the reality of this pseudo-nirvana must be revealed.

Bukovsky rails about the humanity that is "sacrificed for this [socialist] dream" and one is reminded of the "shocking images from a Venezuela hospital [that] reveal the extent of the country's austerity [under socialism]: lacking cribs, newborn babies are placed in cardboard boxes." In fact, "the babies sleeping in cardboard boxes is just one instance of the demise of health care within Venezuela’s hospitals."

In his book titled The Problem with Socialism, Thomas J. DiLorenzo recounts how socialized medicine kills the patient and robs the taxpayer. Thus, "government rationing of medical technology is pervasive in countries with 'single payer,' socialized healthcare. On a per capita basis, the United States has more than three times as many MRI units as Canada does; twice as many CT scanners; and much of the medical technology that does exist in Canada is archaic and obsolete compared to American medical technology." Thus, socialist healthcare rationing "can be especially bad for older patients, because they are seen as drags on the system."

Consequently, the doctors at Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children in London maintained that Charlie should "die with dignity." The ultimate lesson is that "the individual human being is property of the State" despite his parents "succeeding in raising enough money to cover Charlie's travel to America by air ambulance and the cost of the experimental treatment."

Those not completely decimated by socialist governments bravely write of the horror of living in a socialist society where "the result is mountains of corpses and rivers of blood, accompanied by attempts to straighten the stooped and shorten the tall." Consequently, seven million people in the "Breadbasket of Europe" were deliberately starved to death at Stalin's command as he ordered the collectivization of all Ukrainian farms as described in Miron Dolot's Execution by Hunger.

At the Victims of Communism site, Cambodian physician Nal Oum poignantly speaks of the toddlers and newborns who died under the evil regime of the Khmer Rouge because "intellectuals" were rounded up and murdered. Dr. Oum is the only doctor to have survived the killings.

Thus, in Jang Jin-Sung's account of his escape from North Korea in Dear Leader, the reader learns that "the presence of disabled citizens in Pyongyang was an affront to the beauty of the city, and banished them en masse to the countryside." In the land of universal equality, for those who had Central Party identifications documents embossed with the gold party emblem "there was no tedious standing in line for several hours" like the others. And since "everything in North Korea ran according to a centralized system, you couldn't go out for a meal just because you wanted to."

In Ana Veciana-Suarez's account titled Flight to Freedom, she writes of her parents' struggles as they flee to Miami to escape the Communist rule of Fidel Castro and she writes "I am glad for my mother because she took matters into her own hands. It is important, I think, to not just sit around and let things happen to you. But I feel badly for my poor father. How upsetting it must be to realize that everything you have ever believed in is not necessarily true, that everything you have worked for can be taken away by some stupid Communist government."

Bukovsky asserts that the defining characteristics of a socialist regime are that it is "not responsive." Rather, a "tyrannical society is bent on containing individuals in herds." In fact, "no decisions can be made other than on initiatives from above." To counter this, we must "learn to respect the right of even the most insignificant and repulsive individual to live the way he chooses."

Over the years, Bukovsky maintains that they "were often astounded by the idiotic stubbornness of … authorities and their reluctance to look at the obvious facts, all of which did them catastrophic harm." Hence, Ji Li Jiang in Red Scarf Girl: A Memoir of the Cultural Revolution was told that she had to choose between two roads -- she could "break with [her] family and follow Chairman Mao, or [she] could follow [her] father and become an enemy of the people."

The European Union which is bullying countries regarding immigration, health care and the environment, clearly understands the use of force, thus confirming what Bukovsky emphasizes, "[p]eople attain absolute equality only in the graveyard, and if you want to turn your country into a gigantic graveyard, go ahead, join the socialists. But man is so constituted that others' experiences and explanations don't convince him, he has to try things out himself. We Russians now watch events unfolding in Cambodia and Vietnam with increasing horror, and listen sadly to all the chatter about Eurocommunism and socialism with a human face. Why is it that nobody speaks of fascism with a human face?"

posted July 03, 2017 02:18 PM            

Nor is the NHS a European invention but predates the EU by decades.Private doctors have always been available and private insurance came in bigtime in the 80s.

posted July 03, 2017 02:46 PM            

And had thr parents been allowed to take him home he would have been dead already.

As of today the case is still undecided and he is still alive.

By the way a friend of mine just died of cancer here in the USA. The docs who admitted him for his last hospital stay were extremely reluctant to treat him as a possible survivor. He was fully insured and conscious. Bullying by his family was necessary to coerce treatment. The doctors were proven right but they were ready to give up before the end.

I know several people who have successfully sued NHS hospitals for what was judged as medical error.