3 ms·

This is what happens in the UK right now. The government decides when the life support machine gets turned off- they pay for it so it's their choice. Not a com

This is what happens in the UK right now. The government decides when the life support machine gets turned off- they pay for it so it's their choice. Not a common or planned outcome, but an unfortunate byproduct of nationalized healthcare. http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-40423371 http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-40423371

extra88 9y ago
Not really comparable, that's a rare situation with no chance of recovery.
songshu 9y ago
Commercial private medicine and commercial private medical insurance are legal in the UK and do exist although the markets are fairly small. If anything private medicine is less regulated in the UK than it is in the US (for example it's easier to call a doctor and get a price list, on enroll at any time in a plan). The legal basis of not allowing Charlie Gard's parents to take him to the US is not related to the existence of nationalized healthcare.
ivanbakel 9y ago
The Charlie case is not comparable - the question discussed by the court is not whether it should pay to keep him alive, but whether it's ethical to, given that he's constantly incurring brain damage and few people in the medical community believe he has any chance of survival at all. The justification used is that of "continued suffering", not cost.
norikki 9y ago
>Not a planned outcome. Sure, but the people responsible clearly don't care, as evidenced by the tone of the article. Drug addiction is the result of the weak border [1], and a depressing job market [2], which is also the result of the weak border [3]. [1] http://www.businessinsider.com/us-heroin-coming-from-mexican-cartels http://www.businessinsider.com/us-heroin-coming-from-mexican... [2] http://www.gallup.com/opinion/chairman/181469/big-lie-unemployment.aspx http://www.gallup.com/opinion/chairman/181469/big-lie-unempl... [3] https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/03-16-16%20Borjas%20Testimony.pdf https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/03-16-16%20Bo...
- DanBC 9y ago
  The US prescribes far more opioids than any other country. It's likely that some of the addiction problem in the US comes from this irresponsible prescribing. https://www.dea.gov/divisions/hq/2015/hq110415.shtml https://www.dea.gov/divisions/hq/2015/hq110415.shtml > Since 2002, prescription drug deaths have outpaced those of cocaine and heroin combined. Abuse of controlled prescription drugs is higher than that of cocaine, methamphetamine, heroin, MDMA, and PCP combined.
DanBC 9y ago
This is completely untrue. "The government" has no say in life support. The government has given Charlie Gard world class medical treatment. The government has also paid for Charlie Gard to have his own legal representation - independent of his parents - to protect his legal rights. You might want to learn more about the case because nothing in your comment is true. Here's the GOSH statement which lays out the facts: http://www.gosh.nhs.uk/news/latest-press-releases/latest-statement-charlie-gard http://www.gosh.nhs.uk/news/latest-press-releases/latest-sta... > 7. Charlie’s parents fundamentally believe that they alone have the right to decide what treatment Charlie has and does not have. They do not believe that Great Ormond Street should have had the right to apply to the Court for an independent, objective decision to be made. They do not believe that there is any role for a Judge or a court. They believe that only they can and should speak for Charlie and they have said many times that they feel they have been stripped of their rights as parents. > 8. GOSH holds and is bound by different principles. A world where only parents speak and decide for children and where children have no separate identity or rights and no court to hear and protect them is far from the world in which GOSH treats its child patients. > 9. Throughout this court process, Charlie has been represented by his Cafcass Guardian who has visited him in hospital, spoken to Charlie’s parents, nurses and doctors and written reports that ensure that as much as is possible for a desperately unwell baby, Charlies own viewpoint is articulated and given weight. When asked what happens to the role of the Guardian if their belief that only they have the right to decide on Charlie’s treatment is correct, Charlie’s parents answer that he does not need a Guardian because they will speak for him. > 10. GOSH believes in its core that every patient is his or her own, unique and special person and that it owes a duty of care to each. The hospital’s mission statement is “The child first and always” and the hospital does not treat any child differently or as less of an individual because of the severity of illness or disability or because of infancy. If anything, special care is given to discover and work out with parents what is best for very vulnerable patients who cannot speak for themselves

extra88 9y ago

Not really comparable, that's a rare situation with no chance of recovery.

songshu 9y ago

Commercial private medicine and commercial private medical insurance are legal in the UK and do exist although the markets are fairly small. If anything private medicine is less regulated in the UK than it is in the US (for example it's easier to call a doctor and get a price list, on enroll at any time in a plan). The legal basis of not allowing Charlie Gard's parents to take him to the US is not related to the existence of nationalized healthcare.

ivanbakel 9y ago

The Charlie case is not comparable - the question discussed by the court is not whether it should pay to keep him alive, but whether it's ethical to, given that he's constantly incurring brain damage and few people in the medical community believe he has any chance of survival at all. The justification used is that of "continued suffering", not cost.

norikki 9y ago

>Not a planned outcome. Sure, but the people responsible clearly don't care, as evidenced by the tone of the article. Drug addiction is the result of the weak border [1], and a depressing job market [2], which is also the result of the weak border [3]. [1] http://www.businessinsider.com/us-heroin-coming-from-mexican-cartels http://www.businessinsider.com/us-heroin-coming-from-mexican... [2] http://www.gallup.com/opinion/chairman/181469/big-lie-unemployment.aspx http://www.gallup.com/opinion/chairman/181469/big-lie-unempl... [3] https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/03-16-16%20Borjas%20Testimony.pdf https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/03-16-16%20Bo...

DanBC 9y ago
The US prescribes far more opioids than any other country. It's likely that some of the addiction problem in the US comes from this irresponsible prescribing. https://www.dea.gov/divisions/hq/2015/hq110415.shtml https://www.dea.gov/divisions/hq/2015/hq110415.shtml > Since 2002, prescription drug deaths have outpaced those of cocaine and heroin combined. Abuse of controlled prescription drugs is higher than that of cocaine, methamphetamine, heroin, MDMA, and PCP combined.

DanBC 9y ago

This is completely untrue. "The government" has no say in life support. The government has given Charlie Gard world class medical treatment. The government has also paid for Charlie Gard to have his own legal representation - independent of his parents - to protect his legal rights. You might want to learn more about the case because nothing in your comment is true. Here's the GOSH statement which lays out the facts: http://www.gosh.nhs.uk/news/latest-press-releases/latest-statement-charlie-gard http://www.gosh.nhs.uk/news/latest-press-releases/latest-sta... > 7. Charlie’s parents fundamentally believe that they alone have the right to decide what treatment Charlie has and does not have. They do not believe that Great Ormond Street should have had the right to apply to the Court for an independent, objective decision to be made. They do not believe that there is any role for a Judge or a court. They believe that only they can and should speak for Charlie and they have said many times that they feel they have been stripped of their rights as parents. > 8. GOSH holds and is bound by different principles. A world where only parents speak and decide for children and where children have no separate identity or rights and no court to hear and protect them is far from the world in which GOSH treats its child patients. > 9. Throughout this court process, Charlie has been represented by his Cafcass Guardian who has visited him in hospital, spoken to Charlie’s parents, nurses and doctors and written reports that ensure that as much as is possible for a desperately unwell baby, Charlies own viewpoint is articulated and given weight. When asked what happens to the role of the Guardian if their belief that only they have the right to decide on Charlie’s treatment is correct, Charlie’s parents answer that he does not need a Guardian because they will speak for him. > 10. GOSH believes in its core that every patient is his or her own, unique and special person and that it owes a duty of care to each. The hospital’s mission statement is “The child first and always” and the hospital does not treat any child differently or as less of an individual because of the severity of illness or disability or because of infancy. If anything, special care is given to discover and work out with parents what is best for very vulnerable patients who cannot speak for themselves