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.
It wasn't the healthcare system that went to court, it was the doctors and the hospital.
The same doctors and hospital that would have been there if an insurance company was paying the bills.
47 countries are members of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and are subject to the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in Strasbourg, and this includes countries with private healthcare systems such as Switzerland.
The ECHR and ECtHR are completley seperate organisation to the EU.
I believe they had raised the money to continue paying and were trying to bring the child here to the states for treatment.
The doctor in the States who initially thought he could help Charlie realised he couldn't once he found out the exact state of Charlie's health - the treatment would not have helped Charlie and would have only prolonged his suffering and that's why the Court denied the parents the chance to do that because what they wanted to do (understandable as it was from a parent's point of view) was not in Charlie's best interests. This case has absolutely nothing to do with money or single payer - I am confident the outcome would have been the same in the US.
A couple who wanted to take their severely ill baby son to the US for treatment say his life-support will be switched off on Friday.
Chris Gard and Connie Yates wanted the 10-month-old, who suffers from a rare genetic condition and has brain damage, to undergo a therapy trial in the US but lost their final legal battle on Tuesday.
...
doctors at GOSH concluded that the experimental treatment, which is not designed to be curative, would not improve Charlie’s quality of life.
When parents do not agree about a child’s future treatment, it is standard legal process to ask the courts to make a decision. This is what happened in Charlie’s case.
...
June 8: Charlie's parents then lost their fight in the Supreme Court. Charlie's mother broke down in tears and screamed as justices announced their decision and was led from the court by lawyers.
June 27: On Tuesday, European court judges refused to intervene. A Great Ormond Street spokeswoman said the European Court decision marked "the end" of a "difficult process".
Geez - that's terrible. Doctors and Courts will not allow the family to seek care elsewhere for their kid and are willing to let him die without the family exhausting all resources to keep him alive.
The Courts ordered his life support to be switched off because they were not willing to let Charlie continue to suffer when he has no hope of recovery and zero quality of life. I understand why his parents want to try everything possible but all the doctors (including the American doctor they wanted to take Charlie to) and all the Courts (this went up to the highest level) agreed that there was no hope for Charlie and that it is inhumane to allow him to continue suffering.
The doctors and the hospital work directly for the NHS in the U.K. Is this not so?
Yes, it is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp
We have always done this. Insurance doesn't pay forever either.
It does under Obamacare
Quote:
Originally Posted by PCALMike
So why do you call the UK system socialized medicine if you think it is not socialized medicine if people pay taxes to pay for it?
Because the UK government owns and controls all of the healthcare Capital, and because health professionals are government employees.
Due to the fact that the NHS rations patient care and closes waiting lists so they are not fined for having people waiting too long, people have been shifting to private care. Thanks to the Patient Choices law, NHS patients can often now request treatment in a Private Hospital.
NHS hospitals often have private units now. These NHS hospitals use their private units and wards as key sources of income to support their NHS work. That makes it possible to be a private patient, while choosing to be treated in the private wing of an NHS hospital.
Quote:
Originally Posted by juppiter
UK system is not "single payer."
Yes, it is, and the UK method is a stellar example of how not to do healthcare.
The insurance company would be happy to release the child for a possible treatment and be off the financial hook. And even if they did declare that they could pay no further, they would not have the right to turn the machine off.
This child has literally been seized and sentenced to death by the government of the U.K. Anyone who thinks this is acceptable is an ideological psychopath.
To be crass, the child is warm and dead. The sole indication of "life" is a pulse. There is no treatment for its condition because we do not have neural regeneration technologies even in trial. Or have you seen former paraplegics walking around in your region?
We have two parents who really don't want to see the truth, Charlie is Hovis. They're fighting a good fight, but every single court to the highest court in Europe have come back with the same judgement. It's not like the Docs decided one day to just be complete bastards and kill this kid just for s**ts and giggles, he has at best no consciousness, and at worst only enough consciousness to know he's wracked with unimaginable agony. If that's being psycho, then maybe we need a little more of it.
Finally it doesn't matter one hoot where this happened under what flavor of health system. He could be the sole and firstborn progeny of the richest person ever to have lived and the outcome would be going to be the same the condition is beyond the ability of medical science to resolve, and maybe for ever. The kid was doomed from conception, tough break, but the truth.
I want my own healthcare for me, no one else but me. The previous idiot in the WH took it away from me. Took my personal choice from me.
He made me responsible for others. I am not responsible for others except me and mine. Do not tell me that I have to do something against my will. Thus I never participated in ACA. The fine was mitigated by my tax credits. I have no desire to be included in any socialized anything.
I am in favour of total repeal. Keep your socialized crap. I can and will take care of me. My responsibility is to me and not for thee.
ALL insurance, health, auto, home, life, liability, Social Security and so on, mutualize risks. This was true before the ACA and will remain true, come what may.
The cost of insurance is baked into everything you consume.
Then they can try to raise money. If they can't raise money then the hospital can stop care. You can't use other people's money and resources to ventilate a dead body.
In the case being discussed here, the parents have raised the money. They have been forbidden to take their child out of the hospital. The hospital wants to make sure he dies there.
I'd like to see them try that with one of my kids.
The doctors and the hospital work directly for the NHS in the U.K. Is this not so?
Yes, BUT, did you read the post directly above yours?
Brave New World answered your question. It would have made no difference who the doctors and hospital worked for.
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.
