0
32

[–] yewotm8 0 points 32 points (+32|-0) ago 

I hate to make slippery slope arguments

You shouldn't. What's happened to the world in the last 60 years is evidence that "slippery slope" isn't a fallacy at all and that things do get worse. More extreme cases become normalized every year. People are never satisfied and will always push for more. This goes for governments as well, of course.

9
-8

0
7

[–] KILLtheRATS 0 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago 

We went against that, with Trump.

0
5

[–] Heliarc 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Agreed, but the left and the globalists are not finished with us by a long shot- Their media outlets are well-funded and have doubled down the leftist rhetoric after the election, the DNC is spouting even worse bullshit than before, and (((someone))) is giving gobs of cash to BLM, BAMN, the open borders assholes, you name it.

We need to make sure that we have a big enough conservative voting base to overcome the vote fraud that the left is sure to ramp up, again, as we get closer to both the mid-term and presidential elections. Imagine how deep the shit would be right now if that fucking harpy and her crew had made it to the presidency. We need to start getting the damn vote out, now, for these elections.

The group that Clinton was/is headlining for wants the US to emulate Europe, and they're going to keep trying.

0
2

[–] chaos63 [S] 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Hopefully, people in the US will see this Charlie Gard stuff and it will give them pause to think carefully so they can repeal and replace with a better put together health plan

1
6

[–] zen_music 1 points 6 points (+7|-1) ago 

I'll make a guess at the reasoning: if those millions are spent in America helping Charlie Gard survive (in any condition), and the family returns home to the UK, the money spent now will be dwarfed by the future draw on the national health service- millions spent privately now will cost many more millions in the future, Charlie will become a poster boy for 'survival at any cost to the public purse', and that whole rickety house of cards that is the NHS will collapse around one very problematic case, because it won't be the only case, will it?

On the other hand, the pudding-fisted response to this challenge is painful. If you have read everything you could on this and nobody mentioned the future cost issue, that shows how screwed up the whole shooting match is. Why would the authorities not say why they decided what they did? I agree with you that it's a shitty decision, but- if this precedent would destroy public health care in the UK, what would you do?

0
4

[–] Kleyno 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

The reasoning is rather simple. GOSH are stating that to continue to keep Charlie Gard alive, when in their medical opinion, nothing can be done to save him, is prolonging his pain and is therefore in violation of their Hippocratic oath to do no harm.

In theory, it is a good principle to uphold, but it can be interpreted in many ways and often ends up causing harm. For example, no Hospital will end the life of a patient not on life support, even if they are in agony, screaming for them to do it, with no hope of recovery, such as terminal cancer. I should know, it happened to my father.

The parents are also in denial about how serious their son's condition is and the level of brain damage. He's had multiple MRIs done of his brain and many different doctors have examined them and all came to the same conclusion, yet the parents continue to say that the Doctors are all wrong.

It's such a fucked up situation.

0
7

[–] chaos63 [S] 0 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago 

The GOSH are not being asked to keep him alive. They are being asked to hand custody of him over his parents so they can take him to another country for care if they want to. What part of the Hippocratic oath means that once you enter a hospital, the medical staff can bar you from leaving for care elsewhere? Does do no harm mean they shouldn't harm patients? Because they are actually being to do nothing but let the child's parents take bake their own child for care elsewhere.

Shall we live in a world an inferior medical care facility holds you hostage and won't let you upgrade to a better one? A world where parents fear taking their children to the hospital because once there, the doctors have complete power over their children and cannot be questioned, including if they decide to keep the child or bar some treatment that other doctors deem viable?

Doing no harm is a shady excuse for seizing custody of a child who is not a victim of abuse and whose parents simply want to move him to another medical facility for better care. Shall we worship 'experts' mindlessly even when their excuses make no sense and their actions are tyrannical?

0
2

[–] obvious-throwaway- 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Friend is dying of liver failure. Once you get to a certain point they no longer give you food or water. They just give you some meds, not even the heavy kind, and let you die while slowly suffocating and dying of thirst. Expensive to keep someone alive, so even through they could provide IV's and breathing tubes and stronger meds like morphine to help your last days/hours to be painless, you will die in extreme pain suffering every ill imaginable. Great system.

0
3

[–] chaos63 [S] 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

The child has been offered citizenship in the US and Vatican. The child will not be coming back. And even if he were to come back, what is the maximum amount that may be spent on an individual British citizen by the NHS? How do you make arguments about it costing too much to treat this child when there is no stated maximum that can be spent? How much NHS money is spent on people who are not British citizens? Shouldn't the NHS spend all its money on citizens of the country before giving an immigrant so much as a band aid? What are the rights of a British citizen in terms of access to healthcare and other services and how are they different from those of anyone else who happens to be in Britain?

And last but most important, if there is a maximum that the NHS can spend on a person, shouldn't you be told the limit and allowed to seek private, self-funded medical care thereafter? Why should someone die when they can afford private medical care? They could easily have ruled that the child after his treatment would not be eligible for NHS care and his parents would have to finance his continued care, but they didn't, they ruled the child must die and the millions of pounds for his care are not allowed to be spent on what those who care about him donated them for.

Why do they not give detailed explanations for their ruling? Why is their argument just 'the experts say', over and over again? It is no mistake. This is a landmark legal case that will set a precedent for bureaucrats and alleged experts ruling on life and death matters without any scrutiny from laymen. This is a test of whether people will defer to authority without explanation, without justification. It sounds more the beginning of the death of western ideals of democracy, logic and reason than just the death of Charlie Gard.

0
0

[–] zen_music 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Thanks, that puts a different picture in my mind. Sadly, a much more likely scenario.

2
-2

[–] BordelonLoop 2 points -2 points (+0|-2) ago 

please, do not import problems/dilemmas to the US. this is a circus sideshow on a global scale. this isn't about the evil state vs. the angelic parents. this is about reality vs delusion. i have looked into the "doll's eyes" of a loved one who was brain dead and had to let go. this whole spectacle is sickening and the US shout butt the hell out.

0
3

[–] kevdude 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

destroy public health care

Get off the government tit.

1
2

[–] zen_music 1 points 2 points (+3|-1) ago 

Well, yeah, I suppose. Public Health care has become something different than the original idea. In concept, it was supposed to be part of the social systems we do use government for: roads, firefighting, police, hospitals. Not too bad an idea, until we put rats in charge of the grain...

3
0

[–] UchihaMadara 3 points 0 points (+3|-3) ago  (edited ago)

if those millions are spent in America helping Charlie Gard survive

Nah, he's good as dead. Even the American docs said it's extremely unlikely. Just dumb crazy parents being emotional and trying to have a seriously ill kid to live a mediocre life.

––––

"By January 2017, the parents and medical team had decided to attempt an experimental therapy with nucleosides (the precursors of DNA that the child cannot synthesise), but while the medical team was in the process of applying for ethical approval to do so, the child had a further round of severe seizures. Due to the development of likely severe epileptic encephalopathy secondary to these, doctors withdrew their support for attempting the experimental therapy as they felt that it would not be in his best interests, and began discussions with the parents about withdrawing life support and providing palliative care.[2]

On 24 February 2017, the hospital applied for mechanical ventilation to be withdrawn, but his parents Gard and Yates were opposed to this, and wanted to take the child to the United States for an experimental treatment. The case was heard at the High Court with a legal team representing the parents pro bono.[6] On 11 April, Mr Justice Francis ruled that it was in the infant's best interests for his treating clinicians to withdraw mechanical ventilation and provide him with palliative care only, maintaining his dignity.[2][6][7]

The judge noted that the US doctor proposing the nucleoside treatment said that it was "very unlikely that he will improve" with the proposed experimental therapy. He also noted that the treatment proposed had not been used in patients with the same mutation as Charlie Gard, nor with patients with encephalopathy, as he had. There have been no published case studies of the proposed treatment in any patient group.[2]"

0
8

[–] chaos63 [S] 0 points 8 points (+8|-0) ago 

If nobody got experimental drugs, nobody would be able to test new drugs and nothing new would enter the market. The issue here isn't one about chances of survival, it is about the reach of the state and of doctors. By your thinking, what is the minimum likelihood of survival past which we should ban people who have the money for treatment from seeking treatment? How many people with advanced cancers etc are you proposing we leave to die even when they can pay for experimental new treatments that may not work or may be the wonder drug we have all been waiting for? Who gets to decide at what survival likelihood we cut people off and let them die? Who do we serve by blocking law abiding citizens from paying for private healthcare solutions from legitimate, registered providers, whatever their chance of survival? Isn't it up to you and your loved ones, not some inhuman panel of self-aggrandizing 'experts'?

The whole point of science is continuous learning, finding out you are wrong and discovering new things. Why has science all of a sudden been used to claim absolute knowledge and make moral decisions that are outside the scope of science. The chances the boy will live are slim. But the question of whether the state, the NHS or his parents bear responsibility for him, have his best interests at heart and can make decisions for him is not a scientific one. It is an ethical and political one. To argue as some have that once you enter a hospital, your rights are all gone because you have acknowledged the superior medical knowledge of doctors and are at their mercy, unable to choose or decline treatments, unable to leave when you want to, is to grossly overstep and redefine the role of the medical caregiver. You do not give up your freedom or your parental rights over your child by walking into a hospital. And unless they can prove a public health risk from you leaving the hospital, you should be able to leave or take your child to a better facility whenever you want to.

Doctors are not gods we dare not question. They serve us and our well-being at our leisure.

0
4

[–] Drenki 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

Hi, I'm from the government and I'm here to help.

0
4

[–] lettersofmarque 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago  (edited ago)

In essence, for the parents to get their kid to the US for treatment they have to kidnap their own child, smuggle him out of the UK, and become fugitives in the process.

0
2

[–] Halstan 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

You're right. This story needs more coverage. Bloody fucked.

0
1

[–] Nana66 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

It's almost as if the elite globalists need the baby dead for some reason....

0
0

[–] chaos63 [S] 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Does the child have information that could lead to the arrest of Hillary Clinton? I wonder...

0
0

[–] red_jacket 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Nothing to see here. Just another sad case of Arkancide.

0
0

[–] Nana66 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Well...there's that...and stuff like organs, blood...has info about Clinton.... and IDK even know what else....just weird when there's media coverage and POTUS interest.

0
1

[–] Muh-Shugana 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Personally, I assume the real reason for this is to cover for the fact that the EU is rapidly replacing as many of its medical experts with uneducated savages that don't even know what half the words on their fake PhD's mean!

Hell! just a few years back I could remember reading article where people were complaining about how the muslim hospital workers refused to wash their hands thus leading to massive contamination becoming the norm!

But of course, we can't go proving how truly incompetent they are by bringing the baby to the U.S and curing him! therefore in order to keep up the lefties veil of madness- the child must die.

"Sorry, but if Mohammed Abdul Mohammed can't cure your baby, nobody can!"

0
1

[–] chaos63 [S] 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

I am amazed that people aren't freaking out at what sounds like, if we can't fix it, no one should be allowed to, WTF? And how do you get multiple viewpoints on an NHS decision from doctors who all work for the NHS? What part of that sounds like it is likely to give you real diverse perspectives on the child's case? Isn't public choice theory over two decades old now? Don't we all know public servants are people with motives, egos, and biases like everyone else, not angels who only care about the public good?

load more comments ▼ (11 remaining)