2 ms·

Terminally ill boy denied 'potentially life-saving' treatment by NHS 'would be given it in any US hospital' https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/03/termina

by keanzu 7y ago

Terminally ill boy denied 'potentially life-saving' treatment by NHS 'would be given it in any US hospital' https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/03/terminally-boy-denied-potentially-life-saving-treatment-nhs/ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/03/terminally-boy-d... The NHS decides what's necessary care and what's not, then they're supported by the courts. The illusion of "same access as the US" was shattered by Charlie Gard when reality collided with our ideals.

DanBC 7y ago
In the UK: The doctors come up with a plan. The parents disagree. The doctors need to go to court to get a ruling. In the US: The doctors come up with a plan. The parents disagree. It is the parents who need to go to the courts to get a ruling. Charlie Gard's case has absolutely nothing to do with cost. In the UK children are humans and humans have rights, and those rights are protected by the courts. Parents do not get to own children as possessions. The courts will focus on the child's best interests, because of the Paramountcy Principle which flows from Article 3(3) of the EU Treaty and Article 24 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which flows from the UNCRC article 3(1). Charlie Gard's case is about someone who cannot make a choice for themself, and the courts focussing on that person's best interests, not on the interests of that person's relatives. Charlie Gard had RRM2B MDS. This has fewer than 50 cases worldwide. There is no cure. There is no treatment. The discussion is whether to allow him to die with pain relief, or allow medical experimentation that has no hope of success but which will cause pain. Unsurprisingly the courts decided it was in his best interests to be allowed to die with pain relief. 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-... You may wish to read the judgments, because almost everything written by the US press was wrong. https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/great-ormond-street-hospital-v-yates-and-gard/ https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/great-ormond-street-hospi... https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/great-ormond-street-hospital-v-yates-and-gard-24-july-2017/ https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/great-ormond-street-hospi...

by keanzu 7y ago

DanBC 7y ago

In the UK: The doctors come up with a plan. The parents disagree. The doctors need to go to court to get a ruling. In the US: The doctors come up with a plan. The parents disagree. It is the parents who need to go to the courts to get a ruling. Charlie Gard's case has absolutely nothing to do with cost. In the UK children are humans and humans have rights, and those rights are protected by the courts. Parents do not get to own children as possessions. The courts will focus on the child's best interests, because of the Paramountcy Principle which flows from Article 3(3) of the EU Treaty and Article 24 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which flows from the UNCRC article 3(1). Charlie Gard's case is about someone who cannot make a choice for themself, and the courts focussing on that person's best interests, not on the interests of that person's relatives. Charlie Gard had RRM2B MDS. This has fewer than 50 cases worldwide. There is no cure. There is no treatment. The discussion is whether to allow him to die with pain relief, or allow medical experimentation that has no hope of success but which will cause pain. Unsurprisingly the courts decided it was in his best interests to be allowed to die with pain relief. 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-... You may wish to read the judgments, because almost everything written by the US press was wrong. https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/great-ormond-street-hospital-v-yates-and-gard/ https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/great-ormond-street-hospi... https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/great-ormond-street-hospital-v-yates-and-gard-24-july-2017/ https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/great-ormond-street-hospi...