The English baby that the British health plan want to kill should tell everyone a lot

Spare us these hysterical stupid responses, the baby in question isn’t suffering because it has no senses, it is brain dead and only kept alive on life support. No drug can restore the brain, don’t you realise the obvious and if you think that we English kill sick children to save the expense of treating them the you too are brain dead.

 

Without going through all 26 pages of posts I would assume that someone has pointed out to those that would indict the British universal health care for letting Charlie die, not killing him, that had Charlie been born one of the 20+million Americans who will lose their insurance under any of the Republican plans proposed Charlie would not have been kept alive this long nor would he be getting that experimental treatment unless donated.

 

There is no cure, so it's better to let the little guy go than be severely disabled for the rest of his life.

 

If the parents insisted that Charlie be allowed to die with dignity, and the moral ethicists decided, on behalf of the State, that an experimental regimen was proper, would the same folks still support the parents, still insist that their preference must take precedent, or would the zealotss revert to their personal agenda?

It is sad when ideological fanatics who wish to impose a radical, absolutist agenda upon everyone seize upon tragic situations to exploit such as this. These zealots often commence with the fantasy that a microscopic, mindless entity is a person, and their extremist agenda is based upon that notion. They insist that politicians should seize all wombs in furtherance of their fallacy.

Reality is a far more complex, nuanced matter where well-meaning folks often differ, and resolution is achieved through mutual respect, not by demonizing decent folks who simply assess the relative positives and negatives of a course of action differently.

The pertinent issues is, "How likely is the proposed experimental treatment to improve quality of life vs to what extent would it be likely to prolong pain and suffering with negligible efficacious impact?"

It may well be that, given the level of unknowability, a trial of the proposed regimen be initiated to better assess the impact.

Everyone needs to remember that Charlie is a person, not a pawn.

 

One more time there is no reason to believe the parents are the best qualified to make the decision. They are not medical professionals. They are not trained in medical ethics. And in reality they have probably had less interaction with the baby than the nurses and doctors who have been carrying for Charlie since he was born.

 

There was basically the same arguement in the US over the Terri Schiavo case. The republicans/ Conservatives wanted to keep her on life support forever despite unanimous opinion from the medical community thst she was brain dead and would never be anything other than a brain dead shell.

 

I am sorry but your claim that Hospice is essentially assisted suicide is unforgivable. I spent three months taking care of a dying son at home and it would have been impossible without Hospice. You should be ashamed at your lack of gratitude.

 

Are you sure it is a Judge who is representing him?

 

The American right wants to kill only the poor babies: you can keep others in pain for a whole lifetime, with Mr Trump's deeply informed blessing.

 

You need juries because judges cannot be trusted to provide justice. That is why you have juries. Surely you know that.

 

No one who cared about Charlie would want to interfere in his parents choice of any licensed physician.
Busy body bureaucrats alway tend to relish their power to oppress - and especially their power to kill.
That is why almost all rational ordinary human beings fear Big Government. The thing is a killer.

 

In fact, the mass extermination of poor black American babies has been among the highest priorities for what passes for the progressive left in America at least since the Wilson administration.

 

You just chose to publish actionable libel calling a licensed board certified physician is a "quack".
FYI, freedom speech does not protect publishers of libel in the US or the UK.

 

Correct. Which is why the parents who can pay for the treatment in the US should not be interfered with.

 

[

The man is a quack.

In Britain, we don't allow quacks to experiment on children, no matter what you might do in America.

 

That is clear actionable libel. Unless you can prove it. Can you?

 

BRITISHinformal
a doctor.
"he went to see the quack this morning"
synonyms: doctor, physician, medical practitioner, medical man/woman/person
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=quack.&oq=quack.&aqs=chrome..69i57&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

 

Why did you leave out the definition?

Calling a physician a quack is textbook defamation. Publishing the charge is clear libel.

 

Your refusal to participate does not make your statements true. Feel free to believe whatever you'd like though.

 

It is not. It's an opinion. Terms have meanings

 

Stop using terms if you don't know what they mean.

 

And I spent a considerable amount of time caring for my great grandmother and my grandmother in a the same situation. You act as if I was denigrating it. I'm simply calling a spade a spade, if that bothers you perhaps it is you who are ashamed.

 

Publicly denouncing a physician a "quack" is text book defamation. The only defense is proving it is true.

 

What term? Defamation? Or Quack? I know exactly what both mean.

 

No if you think Hospice is essentially assisted suicide you are an ungrateful idiot. And why would I be ashamed. I did full time care for three months while you obviously did diddly and then blamed your inadequacies on Hospice. Maybe instead of home care you dumped them off on a hospice facility because it was easier. You probably weren't even a primary caregiver and are just making yourself feel better by assigning blame for your own inadequacy or lack of caring on others. Or if you were the real caregiver why did you use hospice and then blame them later. Guilt transference make you feel better, maybe.