7 ms·

I think the Charlie Gard case proves your first point wrong. The government absolutely will know in such a system, it has to in order to decide how limited medi

I think the Charlie Gard case proves your first point wrong. The government absolutely will know in such a system, it has to in order to decide how limited medical care resources will be distributed. Every citizen won't be able to receive an unlimited amount of expensive healthcare procedures.

Pulcinella 9y ago
The Gard case didn't have anything to do with limited resources. The parents, doctors, and courts were arguing over what was in Charlie's best interest. There was no argument that his care had become too expensive.
DanBC 9y ago
The Gard case has nothing to do with ability to pay. Cost of care wasn't a feature of any of the decisions or of any of the various court cases. Money is not the problem in the Charlie Gard case. The case is not between the parents and the government, it's between the parents, the child, and the hospital. The child has received world class medical treatment; the hospital can't just kill the child (as would happen in the US, and happens every day) - the hospital has to go to a court and persuade a judge. The parents have their legal representation (and you can say that they should have been eligible for legal aid), the child has his own legal representation paid for by the state, and his own guardian to represent his best interests. The judgements are all available to read. Here's a search that returns all of them: https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/?s=yates+and+gard https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/?s=yates+and+gard And here are a couple of blogs: http://barristerblogger.com/2017/07/16/open-letter-charlie-gard-house-speaker-paul-ryan/ http://barristerblogger.com/2017/07/16/open-letter-charlie-g... http://blogs.bmj.com/medical-ethics/2017/07/07/never-let-an-ill-child-go-to-waste/ http://blogs.bmj.com/medical-ethics/2017/07/07/never-let-an-...
- ameister14 9y ago
  Does that actually happen in the US every day? The hospital is keeping a kid alive, they decide it's better to kill the kid, so they kill the kid? Am I misreading you or is that what you're saying happens? It's been my experience (anecdotal as a person in a family of 8 MD's including pediatricians) that the US actually keeps people alive way past the point where it's appropriate to do so - family has the right to force emergency life-saving procedures and hospice-type end-of-life care isn't as common. Actually, reading the blogs, that's what the parents are trying to do - send the kid to the US in an attempt to save his life, and the UK says that's cruel and he should be allowed to die. Have I totally misread this?
  - int_19h 9y ago
    US will provide emergency care (although someone will still get billed for it - if not the patient, then their parents). But that literally means emergency, like life support. If what you require in order to not let the illness progress to the point where you need life support is some expensive surgery, and you don't have insurance that covers that, you're not getting it. Similarly, for non-life-threatening health issues, you'll get emergency care that treats the immediate symptoms of whatever your problem is (and you'll get billed for them, and be expected to pay), but you get no treatment for the problem itself. Needless to say, this is a very wasteful system.

Pulcinella 9y ago

The Gard case didn't have anything to do with limited resources. The parents, doctors, and courts were arguing over what was in Charlie's best interest. There was no argument that his care had become too expensive.

DanBC 9y ago

The Gard case has nothing to do with ability to pay. Cost of care wasn't a feature of any of the decisions or of any of the various court cases. Money is not the problem in the Charlie Gard case. The case is not between the parents and the government, it's between the parents, the child, and the hospital. The child has received world class medical treatment; the hospital can't just kill the child (as would happen in the US, and happens every day) - the hospital has to go to a court and persuade a judge. The parents have their legal representation (and you can say that they should have been eligible for legal aid), the child has his own legal representation paid for by the state, and his own guardian to represent his best interests. The judgements are all available to read. Here's a search that returns all of them: https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/?s=yates+and+gard https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/?s=yates+and+gard And here are a couple of blogs: http://barristerblogger.com/2017/07/16/open-letter-charlie-gard-house-speaker-paul-ryan/ http://barristerblogger.com/2017/07/16/open-letter-charlie-g... http://blogs.bmj.com/medical-ethics/2017/07/07/never-let-an-ill-child-go-to-waste/ http://blogs.bmj.com/medical-ethics/2017/07/07/never-let-an-...

ameister14 9y ago
Does that actually happen in the US every day? The hospital is keeping a kid alive, they decide it's better to kill the kid, so they kill the kid? Am I misreading you or is that what you're saying happens? It's been my experience (anecdotal as a person in a family of 8 MD's including pediatricians) that the US actually keeps people alive way past the point where it's appropriate to do so - family has the right to force emergency life-saving procedures and hospice-type end-of-life care isn't as common. Actually, reading the blogs, that's what the parents are trying to do - send the kid to the US in an attempt to save his life, and the UK says that's cruel and he should be allowed to die. Have I totally misread this?
- int_19h 9y ago
  US will provide emergency care (although someone will still get billed for it - if not the patient, then their parents). But that literally means emergency, like life support. If what you require in order to not let the illness progress to the point where you need life support is some expensive surgery, and you don't have insurance that covers that, you're not getting it. Similarly, for non-life-threatening health issues, you'll get emergency care that treats the immediate symptoms of whatever your problem is (and you'll get billed for them, and be expected to pay), but you get no treatment for the problem itself. Needless to say, this is a very wasteful system.