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.
Most of you stated that since his condition was "considered" terminal, the government/court was right in preventing any further treatment because it would "torture" him.
You simply refuse to deal with the fact that the government/courts basically took over the parents right to be parents.
Against his parents' wishes -- they had hoped to take him home, but they were refused by the NHS (why? Were they afraid it would kill him?) -- Charlie was moved to a hospice. Charlie's parents had asked to be given a week in the hospice so they could have that much more time with him, but instead, he was terminated directly after admission, "for insurance reasons."
So the state went beyond pulling the plug, and denied the parents the "right" to take him home.
The state - FOR MONETARY REASONS (insurance) - terminated Charlie.
None of you ever think you would find yourself in that situation... neither did Charlie's parents. He was born healthy almost a year ago.
The story began last year. Charlie was born on August 4 and appeared healthy at birth. But within a few months, he started exhibiting muscle weakness, and doctors determined he had a neuromuscular disease, mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome (MDDS).
They diagnosed this a while ago. Maybe if action was taken early, there would have been a good chance for him to survive. However...
MDDS is considered untreatable by standard medicine. The NHS suggested to the parents that they should "pull the plug," and when his parents resisted, the NHS applied to the British courts.
The government took legal action to end Charlie's life. Repeat. The government took legal action to end Charlie's life.
You can rationalize this all you want. This is what you will get with a single payer health system. Single payer is single control for whomever is paying.
The government took action to end Charlie's life.
The government denied the parents the right to take their son home.
The government terminated Charlie for insurance purposes.
There was no insurance involved with Charlie Gard. I am not going to even bother with arguing such drivel as the post above. Anybody truly interested in this sad case, go read the UK thread about Charlie.
There was no insurance involved with Charlie Gard. I am not going to even bother with arguing such drivel as the post above. Anybody truly interested in this sad case, go read the UK thread about Charlie.
You are right Dave, there's no use arguing with these no nothing idiots.
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.
