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.
What difference would that make? The end of life care for the infant has nothing to do with money.
The infant is terminally ill, cannot breathe, cry, or independently complete any of the functions that define life. In the USA, the 10 month old infant would be experimented on using experimental medicine. How does that benefit an infant who cannot even breathe and who is terminally ill?
What difference would that make? The end of life care for the infant has nothing to do with money.
The infant is terminally ill, cannot breathe, cry, or independently complete any of the functions that define life. In the USA, the 10 month old infant would be experimented on using experimental medicine. How does that benefit an infant who cannot even breathe and who is terminally ill?
Maybe it will help, you don't no, either way it is for the parents to decide.
Oh please. This is such total hypocrisy and ludicrous BS. Trump and Congress care so very much about an infant in the UK getting healthcare in the US, they would be willing to spend thousands of dollars and abuse the immigration laws, and yet, Trump and the GOP in Congress are willing to push millions of Americans off of health insurance and deny them basic health care. They sure aren't lifting a finger to help anyone here.
This is another Trump PR event.
It is disgusting that he would use this issue to promote himself. He doesn't care about saving lives or helping anyone get health care, and that has been quite apparent since he was elected and has reneged on all of his campaign lies.
Maybe it will help, you don't no, either way it is for the parents to decide.
As with Jahi McMath, parents sometimes refuse to accept that their child has died, and demand that machines pump oxygen and food in and out of a brain dead body. There is no life or future for a 10 month old infant who is unable to breathe or perform functions that define life. The parents do not want to accept the fact that their child is terminally ill, and cannot be objective about what is best for the child.
Should we have a world where everyone who is unable to independently breathe is plugged into a machine? People get old and their hearts stop, but we should instead plug them in?
Is this supposed to be some kind of horrible sadistic joke? How is a dying child going to benefit by Trump's interference to make the child a naturalized citizen of USA for the purpose of putting him into the hands of American doctors who will experiment on him and cause him worse suffering until he's dead? It's already been determined that the child cannot be saved and is going to die. What is the point of torturing him to death for the sake of Trump's mad man ego and the ignorant parents' unrealistic denialism? The whole idea is monstrously evil.
Firstly he's terminally ill and no one can save him, indeed this is a child who can't see, hear, make a noise, move or swallow and there are only 16 cases of this rare condition in the entire world. The child is never going to have quality of life and is in pain.
Secondly The Ministry of Justice in the UK has stated that the court rulings against Charlie’s parents ‘were made by an independent judiciary’ and there was no basis to challenge them. Prime Minister Theresa May’s spokesman said: ‘This is a very delicate case and it would be inappropriate to discuss it further at this stage. Our thoughts are with Charlie and his family.’
There is very little prospect of the child going to the US unless Great Ormond Street Hospital change their minds (which is unlikely) and there will just be a further long and drawn out Court Case regarding nationality and juristiction, it's not as straight forward as just changing nationality, as legally binding decisions from four courts have already been made and Trump can not just make a mockery of the legal system and European Convention of Human Rights.
Those of us who are pet owners have to make this decision eventually. Children are not pets, of course, but I think there is a comparison: when we get to the point where our friend's quality of life is such that it makes it more painful for them to carry on than to end it, we end it. Whether it is an injection in the forelimb (pets) or by turning off the machines (humans), we end their suffering.
This is not a matter of "socialized medicine = bad"; it is a matter of "what is best for the child." If the child is brain-dead, will never grow up to celebrate birthdays, play with friends, go to school, clumsily date girls, and do what we all did when we were younger; and if the only possible treatment is experimental, not guaranteed; and it will only be provided upon payment of a large fee, which will be due whether or not the child lives or dies--then let little Charlie die with dignity, before he knows what is happening.
"Socialized medicine" is not the issue. This child's quality of life is.
You would rather the child continued its tortured state!? The courts don't take decisions like this lightly, its got nothing to do with 'universal health care' and everything to do with suffering. We all feel deeply for both the child and its parents but there was nothing anybody could do for the baby.
Human Rights Laws apply equally under private health care systems or universal healthcare systems, and the European Court of Human Rights even had Doctors and exerts from European countries look at the case and they came to exectly the same conclusion as the British Doctors and Medical Experts.
In terms of the parents they do generally have the right to seek treatment overseas in most cases where the child is not suffering and in pain and where it's in the childs best interests to do so. However this was not the case in relation to this child who is severally brain damaged already, needs to be on a ventilator to breathe and has to be drip fed, and is terminally ill and in pain and the treatment offered was not designed to be curative, so the child is going to die with or without the experimental treatment.
It's not appriopriate to subject dying children who are in pain to medical experimentation especially when it is not curative and will not prevent the childs death or lead to a better quality of life, as the child will be in even more pain and subjected to more suffering, whilst the severe brain damage and reliance on a ventilator to breathe as well as being drip fed will never change until the terminally ill child dies.
It's also not appropriate to keep the child alive through the use of a ventilator and drip feeding, if they are in so much pain and their death is imminent. It would be more humane to just throw the child off a cliff and let them have a quick and painless death.
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.
