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.
The baby in question was suffering and terminally ill, the experimental treatment in the US was not going to improve the childs life, as the child was already severely brain damaged and in pain.
The UK has some of the oldest and most highly respected Childrens Hospitals such as Great Ormond Street, Alder Hey, Royal Manchester Children's Hospital etc etc
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Guardian
British courts have already concluded that it would be lawful for the hospital to withdraw life sustaining treatment because it was likely Charlie would suffer significant harm if his suffering was prolonged without realistic prospect of improvement. The experimental therapy, the courts maintained, would produce no effective benefit.
The European judges said it was “not for the court to substitute itself for the competent domestic authorities”. British court judgments in the case had been “meticulous”, the ECHR noted.
It said: “The domestic courts had concluded, on the basis of extensive, high-quality expert evidence, that it was most likely Charlie was being exposed to continued pain, suffering and distress and that undergoing experimental treatment with no prospects of success would offer no benefit, and continue to cause him significant harm.”
This is a human rights issue, it has nothing to do with unversal healthcare. Although I know some kooky right-wingers in America like to exploit whatever events they can in order to discredit the concept.
It's just a court saying that a suffering child with a terminal condition should die with dignity rather than be sent to be experimented on by a quack doctor.
It's unbelievable that someone would use this case to try to make an argument against universal health care. That makes no sense. And the OP already stated that no explanation of his thought process is necessary ("nuff said"), so I guess we're done here? Thread over?
This is a human rights issue, it has nothing to do with unversal healthcare. Although I know some kooky right-wingers in America like to exploit whatever events they can in order to discredit the concept.
It's just a court saying that a suffering child with a terminal condition should die with dignity rather than be sent to be experimented on by a quack doctor.
Status:
"“If a thing loves, it is infinite.”"
(set 1 day ago)
Location: Great Britain
27,163 posts, read 13,449,232 times
Reputation: 19459
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grizzly Addams
That decision shouldn't be up to the courts.
The Courts are allowed to intervene in cases of child welfare in most countries and are allowed to protect the rights of the child. The case has been heard in the Family Division of the High Court in London, the UK Supreme Court and the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg and numerous experts have been called to give enidence and the case was even reviewed by doctors from other countries.
The treatment will never reverse the childs brain damage or need to be fed by a tube or the need for a ventilator, and he is in a significant amount of pain, whilst experts do not believe experimental treatment will do anything except cause this child more pain.
The case is heartbreakingly sad, and not a decision that most people would relish having to make, but those who gave evidence were among the foremost experts in the world.
As for Universal Healthcare, this has nothing to do with it, indeed there are private patients and patients from all over the world at Great Ormond Street Hospital for Sick Children.
The Courts are allowed to intervene in cases of child welfare in most countries and are allowed to protect the rights of the child. The case has been heard in the Family Division of the High Court in London, the UK Supreme Court and the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg and numerous experts have been called to give enidence and the case was even reviewed by doctors from other countries.
The treatment will never reverse the childs brain damage or need to be fed by a tube or the need for a ventilator, and he is in a significant amount of pain, whilst experts do not believe experimental treatment will do anything except cause this child more pain.
The case is heartbreakingly sad, and not a decision that most people would relish having to make, but those who gave evidence were among the foremost experts in the world.
As for Universal Healthcare, this has nothing to do with it, indeed there are private patients and patients from all over the world at Great Ormond Street Hospital for Sick Children.
I still believe it still shouldn't be up to the courts to decide. A parent should have the right to decide whether or not they want to give their child an experimental procedure.
What a cheap point to discredit universal healthcare. What I don't understand is why anyone can be against the concept of free healthcare for the population?
What a cheap point to discredit universal healthcare. What I don't understand is why anyone can be against the concept of free healthcare for the population?
There is no such thing as free healthcare. Somebody always has to pay.
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.
