3 ms·

In the U.S., the doctors do not have standing to appear in court and order treatment, or non-treatment, for a patient. That is solely up to the family, and if t

In the U.S., the doctors do not have standing to appear in court and order treatment, or non-treatment, for a patient. That is solely up to the family, and if there is no family, the court appoints a guardian. There is no way this situation could have happened in the U.S., where the parents were forbid to pay for own treatment. I think it does concern single-payer. I can only think of the quote, "A government powerful enough to give you everything you want, has the power to take everything you need away". In this case, where the government controls healthcare, it can make decisions for you, even if that is not what you want, or are willing to pay for yourself.

pjc50 9y ago
I'm not entirely sure that's true in the US, that people can make medical decisions on behalf of a minor without any legal coverage of whether it's in their best interests, but I'm not familiar enough with US law. However if we look at the facts of this case: http://www.gosh.nhs.uk/frequently-asked-questions-about-charlie-gard-court-case http://www.gosh.nhs.uk/frequently-asked-questions-about-char... "One of the factors that influenced this decision was that Charlie’s brain was shown to be extensively damaged at a cellular level. The clinician in the US who is offering the treatment agrees that the experimental treatment will not reverse the brain damage that has already occurred. The entire highly experienced UK team, all those who provided second opinions and the consultant instructed by the parents all agreed that further treatment would be futile – meaning it would be pointless or of no effective benefit." Edit: oh yes, and the court submissions are interesting reading (via twitter:) https://t.co/Wjs7KrRWMU https://t.co/Wjs7KrRWMU > When the hospital was informed that the Professor had new laboratory findings causing him to believe NBT would be more beneficial to Charlie than he had previously opined, GOSH’s hope for Charlie and his parents was that that optimism would be confirmed. It was, therefore, with increasing surprise and disappointment that the hospital listened to the Professor’s fresh evidence to the Court. On 13 July he stated that not only had he not visited the hospital to examine Charlie but in addition, he had not read Charlie’s contemporaneous medical records or viewed Charlie’s brain imaging or read all of the second opinions about Charlie’s condition (obtained from experts all of whom had taken the opportunity to examine him and consider his records) or even read the Judge’s decision made on 11 April. Further, GOSH was concerned to hear the Professor state, for the first time, whilst in the witness box, that he retains a financial interest in some of the NBT compounds he proposed prescribing for Charlie. Devastatingly, the information obtained since 13 July gives no cause for optimism. Rather, it confirms that whilst NBT may well assist others in the future, it cannot and could not have assisted Charlie.
- joshuaheard 9y ago
  The issue is who gets to decide for the child. In the U.S. it's the parents, not the doctors or the court. My concern is that if there is a single payer health care system here in the U.S., the patient will lose control of their health care decisions, as it appears the parents of Charlie Gard did.
  - pjc50 9y ago
    No, sometimes it's the court in the US. http://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/2006/10/hlaw1-0610.html http://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/2006/10/hlaw1-0610.html - and this has nothing to do with who pays for it.

pjc50 9y ago

I'm not entirely sure that's true in the US, that people can make medical decisions on behalf of a minor without any legal coverage of whether it's in their best interests, but I'm not familiar enough with US law. However if we look at the facts of this case: http://www.gosh.nhs.uk/frequently-asked-questions-about-charlie-gard-court-case http://www.gosh.nhs.uk/frequently-asked-questions-about-char... "One of the factors that influenced this decision was that Charlie’s brain was shown to be extensively damaged at a cellular level. The clinician in the US who is offering the treatment agrees that the experimental treatment will not reverse the brain damage that has already occurred. The entire highly experienced UK team, all those who provided second opinions and the consultant instructed by the parents all agreed that further treatment would be futile – meaning it would be pointless or of no effective benefit." Edit: oh yes, and the court submissions are interesting reading (via twitter:) https://t.co/Wjs7KrRWMU https://t.co/Wjs7KrRWMU > When the hospital was informed that the Professor had new laboratory findings causing him to believe NBT would be more beneficial to Charlie than he had previously opined, GOSH’s hope for Charlie and his parents was that that optimism would be confirmed. It was, therefore, with increasing surprise and disappointment that the hospital listened to the Professor’s fresh evidence to the Court. On 13 July he stated that not only had he not visited the hospital to examine Charlie but in addition, he had not read Charlie’s contemporaneous medical records or viewed Charlie’s brain imaging or read all of the second opinions about Charlie’s condition (obtained from experts all of whom had taken the opportunity to examine him and consider his records) or even read the Judge’s decision made on 11 April. Further, GOSH was concerned to hear the Professor state, for the first time, whilst in the witness box, that he retains a financial interest in some of the NBT compounds he proposed prescribing for Charlie. Devastatingly, the information obtained since 13 July gives no cause for optimism. Rather, it confirms that whilst NBT may well assist others in the future, it cannot and could not have assisted Charlie.

joshuaheard 9y ago
The issue is who gets to decide for the child. In the U.S. it's the parents, not the doctors or the court. My concern is that if there is a single payer health care system here in the U.S., the patient will lose control of their health care decisions, as it appears the parents of Charlie Gard did.
- pjc50 9y ago
  No, sometimes it's the court in the US. http://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/2006/10/hlaw1-0610.html http://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/2006/10/hlaw1-0610.html - and this has nothing to do with who pays for it.