Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Firstly it wasn't a Government decision, it was a decision made by the Courts including a final appeal decision by the European Court of Justice which serves 47 countries and which often prosecutes Governments for Human Rights violations.
Secondly everyone agreed including the US Doctor that the experimental treatment would not improve the babies life and would just lead to further pain.
Thirdly it was agreed by all four courts having been presented with all the medical evidence provided that palliative care would be the most humane way forward, and the baby is already terminally ill, so is going to die anyway with or without the treatment. So how can it be a death panel when the child is going to die anyway and when the Court is just trying to protect the child from unecessary suffering and pain. The Rights of the Child must be balanced with those of the parents in such cases.
My advice is to try actually reading the transcripts of the case, in order to form a greater understanding of the issues.
Just answer me on this... is it mandatory for the parents to go through the court system to get further care elsewhere if there is a dispute regarding the care of an individual?
Status:
"“If a thing loves, it is infinite.”"
(set 8 hours ago)
Location: Great Britain
27,160 posts, read 13,444,010 times
Reputation: 19454
Quote:
Originally Posted by DRob4JC
Just answer me on this... is it mandatory for the parents to go through the court system to get further care elsewhere if there is a dispute regarding the care of an individual?
It is very rare for a dispute like this to arise and the case is unique in relation to it's own set of circumstances and this case was based on human rights legislation in relation to the rights of a dying baby.
In most cases where there is capacity, and informed decisions and agreements can be made, however as happened here clinical medical decisions can be challenged through the courts as part of the democratic process, just as decisions made by parents that are not made in the interest of a dying child can be challenged.
Previous cases have mainly been in relation to the opposite of Charlie Gard, such as the Anthony Bland case, where the family succesfully argued for the right of a man left in a permanent vegetive state to die, where in making the decision whether or not to provide medical treatment the question to be asked is whether it is in the best interests of the patient that his life should be prolonged. The case was found in favour of the family and treatment was withdrawn and the patient died with the dignity the family had sought.
Another case was Diane Pretty who had Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), also known as Lou Gehrig's disease and motor neurone disease (MND) in the UK. Diane argued for the right to euthanasia and stated stated "I want to have a quick death without suffering, at home surrounded by my family"
Pretty took her case to court using the Human Rights Act 1998 to argue that the Director of Public Prosecutions should make a commitment not to prosecute anybody involved in helping her to die. She focused on Articles 3 and 8 in her argument. British courts did not accept Pretty's arguments, with the House of Lords, Britain's highest court at the time, eventually turning her case down.
The European Court of Human Rights refused to acknowledge that the European Convention on Human Rights provided a right to die, and her appeal to that court also failed. She stated "I feel I have no rights," after her appeal to the House of Lords was rejected. Diane Pretty died aged 43 on 11 May 2002, as her health had deteriorated over the last several months due to a series of lung and chest problems.
In terms of treatments, the ECHR do not generally enforce any right to free medical treatments, and leave it to the discretion of health authorities in the 47 countries who are ECHR signatories.
As for treatments, the UK has a very comprehensive universal heathcare system and a private health care system, and you are free to take out health insurance or pay for any treatments you wish, as well as receiving treatment via the National Health Service.
Last edited by Brave New World; 07-05-2017 at 10:52 AM..
I ask myself, would this person be alive if they had been born before modern medicine, say, 150 years ago? If not, then we have taken the responsibility for life and therefore death into our own hands. We have to make the choice for both when we assume responsibility for eaither. There are times when we can give life and there are times we should at least allow it to end.
It is very rare for a dispute like this to arise and the case is unique in relation to it's own set of circumstances and this case was based on human rights legislation in relation to the rights of a dying baby.
In most cases where there is capacity, and informed decisions and agreements can be made, however as happened here clinical medical decisions can be challenged through the courts as part of the democratic process, just as decisions made by parents that are not made in the interest of a dying child can be challenged.
Previous cases have mainly been in relation to the opposite of Charlie Gard, such as the Anthony Bland case, where the family succesfully argued for the right of a man left in a permanent vegetive state to die, where in making the decision whether or not to provide medical treatment the question to be asked is whether it is in the best interests of the patient that his life should be prolonged. The case was found in favour of the family and treatment was withdrawn and the patient died with the dignity the family had sought.
Another case was Diane Pretty who had Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), also known as Lou Gehrig's disease and motor neurone disease (MND) in the UK. Diane argued for the right to euthanasia and stated stated "I want to have a quick death without suffering, at home surrounded by my family"
Pretty took her case to court using the Human Rights Act 1998 to argue that the Director of Public Prosecutions should make a commitment not to prosecute anybody involved in helping her to die. She focused on Articles 3 and 8 in her argument. British courts did not accept Pretty's arguments, with the House of Lords, Britain's highest court at the time, eventually turning her case down.
The European Court of Human Rights refused to acknowledge that the European Convention on Human Rights provided a right to die, and her appeal to that court also failed. She stated "I feel I have no rights," after her appeal to the House of Lords was rejected. Diane Pretty died aged 43 on 11 May 2002, as her health had deteriorated over the last several months due to a series of lung and chest problems.
In terms of treatments, the ECHR do not generally enforce any right to free medical treatments, and leave it to the discretion of health authorities in the 47 countries who are ECHR signatories.
As for treatments, the UK has a very comprehensive universal heathcare system and a private health care system, and you are free to take out health insurance or pay for any treatments you wish, as well as receiving treatment via the National Health Service.
Are they allowed to seek care elsewhere? That's a simple question.
If he did not show any interest in helping this family, then he would be criticized for that.....just can't win.
This is what he does. He makes pie in the sky promises that he has no intention of keeping or can't. Only the truly gullible actually believe him, aka republicans.
Quote:
We paid for our family health insurance for 18 years, $18,000 - $20,000 a month. Obamacare made it worse.....we paid more for less. We struggled to make this payment every month. It was our responsibility, not arguing about that. Middle class were not given any kind of break.....made it worse. Those under Obamacare who have a lower income are given government subsidies, they are being helped. Again, the burden falls on the middle. We never hear about this. All we keep hearing about is people will no longer have insurance. I don't mind people who are able bodied, working and contributing members of society getting assistance/subsidies. That is fine. My point is....perhaps those that can will have to take on more responsibility under the new plan. Those that can't, will in one way or the other be assisted. Sorry I am off topic and venting, but there is another side of this too.
How exactly would they be assisted if they can't pay a million dollar hospital bill, but they aren't poor enough to go on medicaid? Those who cannot pay or have preexisting conditions will simply have to die, just like they did before Obamacare came along. You know this. Stop pretending you don't.
Furthermore, Trumpcare has nothing at all to do with healthcare. It's a trillion tax break for the rich that they are calling a healthcare bill, hahahaha.
Are they allowed to seek care elsewhere? That's a simple question.
Provided that seeking that care does not cause undue suffering or be considered abuse, sure. And if those parents are mentally competent and acting rationally, sure. However neither of those two apply in this case, the parents are in deep denial, and the sole treatment 'may' extend existence in less advanced cases, meaning that any suffering is similarly extended thus can be considered to cause undue suffering. You want to help this kid? Cryo it's butt and pray he can be thawed and healed in 100+ years, it's his only chance, or just let nature take its course. Yes Cryo is out there, so would taking it to Lourdes, both have better chances of success.
There's a reason that all health services ethically will not allow treatment by family members, it's because they can make irrational choices and go for outrageous Hail Mary's that are not in the best interests of the patient, and that's with umpteen years of med school and practicing medicine. What makes you think these parents can make better medical decisions for their, for all intents and purposes, zombie baby?
Provided that seeking that care does not cause undue suffering or be considered abuse, sure. And if those parents are mentally competent and acting rationally, sure. However neither of those two apply in this case, the parents are in deep denial, and the sole treatment 'may' extend existence in less advanced cases, meaning that any suffering is similarly extended thus can be considered to cause undue suffering. You want to help this kid? Cryo it's butt and pray he can be thawed and healed in 100+ years, it's his only chance, or just let nature take its course. Yes Cryo is out there, so would taking it to Lourdes, both have better chances of success.
There's a reason that all health services ethically will not allow treatment by family members, it's because they can make irrational choices and go for outrageous Hail Mary's that are not in the best interests of the patient, and that's with umpteen years of med school and practicing medicine. What makes you think these parents can make better medical decisions for their, for all intents and purposes, zombie baby?
WHO makes the final determination?
You guys want to tiptoe all around the issue, because you know where I am going with this.
The UK Court is part of the healthcare process when there are disputes. People do not have the freedom to just pick up and leave and go to another provider if there is a disagreement.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
