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 a recent case an American Judge in Nashville, Tennessee went against the parents wishes and sided with the hospital in the case of a young child Steffen Rivenburg Jr - why didn't we hear Americans talking about this case.
It's funny how the American Right highlights one case and criticises our system yet ignores such legal cases in their own country such as the very recent case of Steffen Rivenburg.
How come Steffen didn't make the international news.
The Tenn. story wasn't used becasue it didn't get any attention.
Why didn't it get attention? Who knows. We could try and be cynical and say that it was ignored since it couldn't be used to criticize universal healthcare, but frankly, there's no evidence to suggest this is the case.
Who knows why similar stories don't get similar media attention. There's no always a method to the madness.
Status:
"“If a thing loves, it is infinite.”"
(set 5 days ago)
Location: Great Britain
27,189 posts, read 13,477,157 times
Reputation: 19519
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDusty
The Tenn. story wasn't used becasue it didn't get any attention.
Why didn't it get attention? Who knows. We could try and be cynical and say that it was ignored since it couldn't be used to criticize universal healthcare, but frankly, there's no evidence to suggest this is the case.
Who knows why similar stories don't get similar media attention. There's no always a method to the madness.
But at the same time you had people including Mike Pence stating that this is socialised health cares fault and it's a death panel.
I know most Americans have very differing political views. and I am only talking about a minority on the 'right', but in reality the Courts are the only people who can onverride parental responsibility in most western countries, and this is mainly based on expert medical opinion, and this was ultimately the case in both Court cases.
The hospital whether state run or privately run can not override the parents wishes, whether in the UK or US, hence the need for such controversial cases to e decided by the Courts and an Independent Judiciary.
I just feel the US Right was trying twist the reality of the situation for political capital, at a time when US Health Care is under so much scrutiny.
The Tenn. story wasn't used becasue it didn't get any attention.
Why didn't it get attention? Who knows. We could try and be cynical and say that it was ignored since it couldn't be used to criticize universal healthcare, but frankly, there's no evidence to suggest this is the case.
Who knows why similar stories don't get similar media attention. There's no always a method to the madness.
I'm fairly sure that's why the American case was ignored while the British case was publicized. Some people on the far right have an agenda to make universal health insurance look bad.
Both cases were similar but the American baby had a better chance at survival. Yet he was allowed to die, same as the British baby. In the case of the British baby, there was absolutely no chance of survival. There was also no way to take him home because the life support system was too large to fit into the house. Finally, he died at home minus the life support.
I don't listen to right wing news but I bet they were whipping it up over this case before the rest of us even heard about it.
In a recent case an American Judge in Nashville, Tennessee went against the parents wishes and sided with the hospital in the case of a young child Steffen Rivenburg Jr - why didn't we hear Americans talking about this case.
It's funny how the American Right highlights one case and criticises our system yet ignores such legal cases in their own country such as the very recent case of Steffen Rivenburg.
How come Steffen didn't make the international news.
Likely because 45 didn't view it as a way to score political points with his base.
No "socialized" medicine to bash, so...
Status:
"“If a thing loves, it is infinite.”"
(set 5 days ago)
Location: Great Britain
27,189 posts, read 13,477,157 times
Reputation: 19519
Quote:
Originally Posted by GotHereQuickAsICould
So the parents had the money and the equipment to take their child and the court would not let them?
The case in the US was similarly sorted out by the Courts, as lready pointed out in the thread the Courts in both the US and UK decide on such issues in relation to the turning off of life support machines, which is what both the UK Hospital and US Hospital had asked the Courts to based on expert medical advice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Guardian
Dominic Wilkinson, a consultant neonatologist and professor of medical ethics at the University of Oxford, pointed out that every expert who had seen Charlie had sided with the Great Ormond Street team in believing nothing could be done for him.
That included an independent medical expert in mitochondrial diseases from Southampton University who was asked by the parents for a second opinion.
Wilkinson said that if Hirano and the other international doctors who proposed nucleoside therapy for Charlie had actually seen him, “who knows what assessment they would have reached.
It is quite possible that they would have come to the same conclusion”. It was only after Hirano saw Charlie last week that his parents, Connie Yates and Chris Gard, decided to give up the legal fight to have him taken to the US for treatment.
In a recent case an American Judge in Nashville, Tennessee went against the parents wishes and sided with the hospital in the case of a young child Steffen Rivenburg Jr - why didn't we hear Americans talking about this case.
It's funny how the American Right highlights one case and criticises our system yet ignores such legal cases in their own country such as the very recent case of Steffen Rivenburg.
How come Steffen didn't make the international news.
Maybe it had to do with the UK not wanting him to be moved to the US for treatment, but this has nothing do to do with right versus left for heaven's sake, it has more to do with the media attention it got, Why would you make this a right versus left debate?
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.
Why did the American Right constantly use the Charlie Gard Case but not the Steffen Rivenburg Case??
