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.
In real life, adults are allowed to fill out living wills and DNR's. In this case the parents are not willing to allow their child to pass.
I had an experience a few years ago where a family member, who had a DNR and living will, was failing. The family did not recognize the fact that this loved one was dying. After 3 days one of the Dr's sat down and explained that our loved one's body was failing and recommended moving him to the Hospice wing of this hospital.
Very difficult for the family but thankfully the correct decision had been made before hand by the family member.
I feel for the family but at a certain point you need to be able to let gods will happen.
The parents can keep him alive on the machines if they can pay for it themselves. The British government is not willing to continue paying for medical care on an infant who is terminally ill and has zero hope of improvement.
Wait.
Does this mean we can abolish all government in our health care system?
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.
If that's what single payer is, I'll do without it.
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.
The US courts are part of the healthcare process in the US when there are disputes between parents and doctors, if doctors believe the parents actions are likely to increase the child's suffering or be incidentally or actually abusive. Heard of Child Protective Services ever?
Yes people can go to other providers in the UK, my Mom wasn't getting satisfaction from Newcastle Freeman Hospital (look it up smart lad), she's now getting treatment in Newcastle RVI. I'm dual national British, I know what I'm talking about because for 20+ years I was treated by the NHS (and BUPA). What are your credentials? You know a guy who knows a guy who heard from someone in Belize that this is the case? You're clearly not British, and you clearly have no clue about the child's condition, and you clearly have no clue about how the UK'S legal system gets involved in cases for treatment of minors, and you don't apparently understand how this happens in your own country of origin.
I know, you have an opinion, it's wrong, but good for you. And much like another thing everyone has it stinks. You know there's plenty enough wrong with the UK'S health system without making stuff up, or regurgitating the thrice removed guy in Belize claims.
Are they allowed to seek care elsewhere? That's a simple question.
And here's a simple answer, the child is beyond help. The doctors at GOSH have said so, and other top experts in the illness that Charlie suffers from agree.
If you know more about his condition than his doctors, please let GOSH know.
It isn't 'obvious' though is it, its just your incredibly incorrect opinion and if something is 'obvious' you would easily find some kind of 'evidence' to back up your claims - it seems 'obvious' to me that you don't know what you are talking about (your statement above is my proof to the 'bleedin obvious')
Great Ormond Street Hospital now have a fequently asked questions page, whilst the decisions of the High Court (Family Division), Court of Appeal, UK Supreme Court and the European Court of Human Rights are all set out below.
The parents can keep him alive on the machines if they can pay for it themselves. The British government is not willing to continue paying for medical care on an infant who is terminally ill and has zero hope of improvement.
This case have zero to do with money and everything to do with the human rights of Charlie. The doctors and the Courts are in agreement that keeping Charlie alive in his state is not in his best interests because its essentially keeping him alive just to suffer which is very wrong. The parents cannot keep him alive on machines even if they had all the money in the world because it is ethically wrong - in the US perhaps they might be able to but that says more about the lack of ethics in medicine in the US.
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.
