patrick.net

The optics are terrible, but I don't think there was ever much hope for this poor baby 😔

That is pretty fucked up. Especially considering that they raised the money on their own to try a treatment in the US.

Apparently they can't even take their baby home?

This is where government Single Payer systems lead. Government having total control over life and death decisions as opposed to the patients or families.

No thanks!

The UK has had an NHS since WWII, and I had never heard anything like this before, so at first I suspected it must be partisan spin, but it's true:

"On Tuesday, the European court of human rights (ECHR) rejected Gard and Yates’s appeal that Charlie should be allowed to undergo experimental treatment in the US, closing off the last legal avenue of appeal for the family.

British courts concluded that it would be lawful for the hospital to withdraw life sustaining treatment because it was likely Charlie would suffer significant harm if his suffering was prolonged without realistic prospect of improvement. The experimental therapy, the courts maintained, would produce no effective benefit."

Quigley says

The optics are terrible, but I don't think there was ever much hope for this poor baby 😔

You're right but the parents wanted to try and were ready and willing and able to pay with no help from the state.

Something seems to have gone wrong somehow. When NHS started, it was a floor not a ceiling: people were assured they could use all or any part of it, with no obligation other than paying their taxes. Alas the Rx mandate, recent privatization, and now this decision combine to make the system more coercive and less about helping. Separately, a paralyzed but alert adult patient expressed clearly that he wanted to end treatment and die, and was told he was not allowed to do that either; he ended up starving himself and dying "of natural causes." (See also the late Jean Davies.) I don't really understand how providing a public floor gets subverted into empowering the state in this way, but I wonder if they might both be branches of the same tree, with the trick being to get the benefit of a public floor while preventing it from getting flipped into becoming a ceiling.

Quigley says

The optics are terrible, but I don't think there was ever much hope for this poor baby 😔

Possibly but the experimental care is in the US and who knows-there may be a .02% chance it might work. If that is your baby and you raised the cash to treat on your own-why should the court intervene?

So basically it all boils down to NHS preventing UK citizens from leaving the country. By what power?

Straw Man says

So basically it all boils down to NHS preventing UK citizens from leaving the country. By what power?

It just does not make sense. The laws need to change.

Straw Man says

By what power?

The hospital had possession of the child, and American hospitals can be even worse than NHS.

For example, Connecticut had a similar case, where a teen and her mom were refusing cancer treatment that the teen didn't want: the hospital corporation contacted the state, which dispatched police on an emergency basis and took custody of the teen and brought her to the hospital, where she was confined and forced to undergo chemo against her will. Substantially the same happened to a 90yo, and the police arrested his daughter for helping him instead of the hospital corporation. The teen survived, but the 90yo died and the hospital corporation collected $$$$ from Medicare.

Most people have no idea the extent to which American hospital corporations have abused people to maximize revenue, and their influence over local law enforcement. I miss Turtledove, who wrote about it here in CA.

Strategist says

Straw Man says

So basically it all boils down to NHS preventing UK citizens from leaving the country. By what power?

It just does not make sense. The laws need to change.

No, seriously: if a parent shows up with a properly-equipped ambulance and a letter from legitimate hospital saying that they are willing to admit the child, what right the current hospital has to hold him? Parents are his legal guardians. Is it because they don't accept the bona fides of US hospitals there?

PS. Would it be legal or US hospital to refuse to transfer a patient into another hospital if his legal guardians demands it? I doubt it .

Straw Man says

Would it be legal or US hospital to refuse to transfer a patient into another hospital if his legal guardians demands it?

That has actually happened in Massachusetts, and probably elsewhere. See above.

Obamneycare didn't create this problem, but hospital corporations can command literally infinite subsidies now, much more than NHS hospitals can. It's tough to fight a well connected corporation that can use literally infinite subsidies to manipulate the process. The NHS report looks bad, and is, but American hospitals do even worse.

Straw Man says

It just does not make sense. The laws need to change.

No, seriously: if a parent shows up with a properly-equipped ambulance and a letter from legitimate hospital saying that they are willing to admit the child, what right the current hospital has to hold him? Parents are his legal guardians. Is it because they don't accept the bona fides of US hospitals there?

PS. Would it be legal or US hospital to refuse to transfer a patient into another hospital if his legal guardians demands it? I doubt it .

It's weird. It does not cost the Brits anything. They would actually save money by discharging the baby well before it dies.
The money spent on the experimental treatment would even enhance medical knowledge. We need to know what works and what does not, so that babies with similar illnesses can be saved in the future.
We live in a fucked up world. :(

curious2 says

Straw Man says

Would it be legal or US hospital to refuse to transfer a patient into another hospital if his legal guardians demands it?

That has actually happened in Massachusetts, and probably elsewhere. See above.

How come this shit didn't end up in SCOTUS?

PS. It also means that a DNR order can be simply ignored by the hospital.

Straw Man says

SCOTUS?

SCOTUS doesn't take most cases, and if you think the American Hospital Association has less influence at the federal level then you haven't read Obamneycare, which arrogated unprecedented power and yet got upheld by SCOTUS in 2012.

Straw Man says

It also seams that a DNR order can be simply ignored by the hospital.

Hospital corporations can legally ignore an advance healthcare directive or "living will," and many do. Religious hospitals are the worst, saying their religion commands them to bill for everything possible to keep you "alive," and now with "no lifetime caps" Terry Schiavo could stay on tubes indefinitely. BTW, comatose females in some of these hospitals have become pregnant, which Catholic hospitals call immaculate conception. They are raping the patients in every conceivable way.

And, Gorsuch is one of many Republicans insisting that religious corporations are exempt from secular laws of general application. So, even if you write legislation to enforce a DNR, Gorsuch can say (and did in Hobby Lobby) that the corporation has a Constitutional right to follow its religion regardless of the law.

curious2 says

Yes, an advance healthcare directive or "living will" does not bind a hospital corporation. They can and do refuse to translate it into a medical order.

But at least the person who's paying for his own care (or insurance) can stop paying the bills (or premium). With "single-payer" the money are already taken from you as taxes and the fucks will be getting them no matter what. Which means that argument that "single-payer" shit makes people more free is bogus. It's actually the opposite: it fucking turns you into govt's property.

Straw Man says

can stop paying the bills (or premium).

Not anymore: no more lifetime caps. Thanks, Obamneycare. IDK how Canadian single payer works, but a British NHS hospital would not automatically get a budget increase for keeping you as a vegetable against your will. An American Catholic hospital would. Funny how it is then "revealed" that their religion commands them to do it, even though the actual text says Jesus was a faith healer and any true believer would have healing powers, no medical intervention required.

curious2 says

Straw Man says

can stop paying the bills (or premium).

Not anymore: no more lifetime caps. Thanks, Obamneycare. IDK how Canadian single payer works, but a British NHS hospital would not automatically get a budget increase for keeping you as a vegetable against your will. An American Catholic hospital would.

Not sure if I follow: are you saying that even if patient is not eligible for Medicare/Medicaid and doesn't pay his bills and doesn't have private insurance (because he stopped paying premium) the hospital would still have an incentive to not release him to another hospital/hospice or home? They would have to go through courts to get the money in this case, wouldn't they?

Socialism does mean government chooses who lives or dies, their treatment options, etc...

Freedom dies

Straw Man says

They would have to go through courts to get the money in this case, wouldn't they?

Hospital corporations are well represented and have considerable influence in the courts, e.g. to have the court appoint a guardian to continue paying the premiums. Every citizen is eligible for at least one of Medicaid/Medicare/Obamneycare, of which Obamneycare pays the most. The hospital corporation bills on a fee-for-"service" basis, so each additional "service" results in more revenue.

curious2 says

. Every citizen is eligible for at least one of Medicaid/Medicare/Obamneycare, of which Obamneycare pays the most

You've completely lost me. Under Obamacare there are three type of payers: Medicare, Medicaid and private insurance. What a young (but not minor) and not poor person w/o current private medical insurance is "eligible" for (except penalty for not having the latter)?

Straw Man says

What a young (but not minor) and not poor person w/o current private medical insurance is "eligible" for (except penalty for not having the latter)?

The latter.

curious2 says

The UK has had an NHS since WWII, and I had never heard anything like this before, so at first I suspected it must be partisan spin, but it's true:

The Breitbart article is still a lie and propaganda piece. It says,

A European court has ruled that the parents of a critically ill baby cannot privately pay for him to go to the United States for “experimental treatment”, and the child must stay in a British hospital to “die with dignity”.

The article also calls the court a death panel. The article is clearly trying to make the case that the court, out of apathy or bureaucracy, is killing the child to save money. And the right-wing PatNet users bought this lie hook, line, and sinker.

Straw Man says

So basically it all boils down to NHS preventing UK citizens from leaving the country. By what power?

Strategist says

It just does not make sense. The laws need to change.

Strategist says

It's weird. It does not cost the Brits anything. They would actually save money by discharging the baby well before it dies.

FortWayne says

Socialism does mean government chooses who lives or dies, their treatment options, etc...

Freedom dies

The above quotes show that those PatNet users have been completely fooled.

As the article you referenced says,

British courts concluded that it would be lawful for the hospital to withdraw life sustaining treatment because it was likely Charlie would suffer significant harm if his suffering was prolonged without realistic prospect of improvement. The experimental therapy, the courts maintained, would produce no effective benefit.

This judgement has nothing whatsoever to do with socialize medicine. It is a state prohibiting parents from prolonging the suffering of a child for the false hope of a recovery. The state, rightfully or wrongfully, is attempting to prevent a baby from enduring agony when there is no hope for recovery.

Maybe you can make the case that the state is wrong because there really is hope for recovery, but that has nothing to do with socialized medicine or the NHS. It has to do with whether or not the court is has properly evaluated the evidence.

Maybe you can make the case that the state should not have the power to prevent even futile treatment that would prolong the suffering of a person too young to consent to anything. But again, that has nothing to do with socialized medicine, but rather with the state's power to look after the interests of children too young to make their own decisions and with parent's rights.

Maybe you can make the case that the child is feeling no pain, but that's a medical thing, not a payment thing and has nothing to do with socializing health care or cutting costs.

Put simply, the asshole alt right is using a suffering baby as a pawn in a political game by feeding complete bullshit to people gullible enough to fall for this obvious propaganda. And based on the reactions of Straw Man, Strategist, and FortWayne, it's working. This is why propaganda needs to be illegal. Some people are just too damn stupid to resist it, and those people can be manipulated into doing anything as a result.

Dan8267 says

alt right

I linked to the report in The Guardian. The British and European courts prohibited the parents from taking their child out of the hospital.

curious2 says

Dan8267 says

alt right

I linked to the report in The Guardian.

I was referring to Breitbart, not the article you cited, as the alt right.

curious2 says

The British and European courts prohibited the parents from taking their child out of the hospital.

And this is the long and short of it.

curious2 says

Straw Man says

What a young (but not minor) and not poor person w/o current private medical insurance is "eligible" for (except penalty for not having the latter)?

The latter.

You mean private insurance co woul pay even if premiums are not paid? What about the case when the person in question has not bought insurance for the year? I just don't see where the "eligibility under obamneycare" would come from in such cases.

Straw Man says

What about the case when the person in question has not bought insurance for the year?

You can sign up any time if certain events happen, for example if you lose a job. If you get hit by a car and end up like Terry Schiavo, you can't go to a job anymore, and the only question is who will decide whether you get signed up for mandatory insurance or not. The hospital corporation has a lot of money riding on that decision, and a lot of influence to make sure it goes the most expensive way. Your life depends on signing up, so a guardian might well do that, even if you didn't want that. Besides, 90% of Americans are in fact covered by one program or another, so you're really searching for exceptions: 90% of the time, the person is already covered.

Best argument for abortion: Look into a mirror.

The child could grow up to be a Conservative.
Horrible way to live a life.

curious2 says

Straw Man says

What about the case when the person in question has not bought insurance for the year?

You can sign up any time if certain events happen, for example if you lose a job. If you get hit by a car and end up like Terry Schiavo, you can't go to a job anymore, and the only question is who will decide whether you get signed up for mandatory insurance or not. The hospital corporation has a lot of money riding on that decision, and a lot of influence to make sure it goes the most expensive way. Your life depends on signing up, so a guardian might well do that, even if you didn't want that. Besides, 90% of Americans are in fact covered by one program or another, so you're really searching for exceptions: 90% of the time, the person is already covered.

Too many ifs to make it work.

Not really enough information in the article.

Does parental narcissism allow the parents to inflict limitlessly on both the child and society? A fatal "genetic defect"?

Are the parents just abusing the child's misery to get sympathy money from crowd funding, like the Moms who shave their kids' heads and claim they are suffering from cancer? Child croaks, parents keep the residuals to the tune of a cool million or so?

Is the "experimental treatment" something real, or just another "laetrile con" that has no realistic expectation of medical legitimacy?

Babies are always a sympathy shtick, but really. The parents aren't always the ones who represent the child's best interests.

Quigley says

The optics are terrible, but I don't think there was ever much hope for this poor baby 😔

That's not the point. This is about freedom. If the parents want to try an experimental procedure to save their baby, it is disgusting not to allow it.

This is what central control of an economic system looks like. It ain't pretty

Dan8267 says

The state, rightfully or wrongfully, is attempting to prevent a baby from enduring agony when there is no hope for recovery.

This is a terrible thing for a court to decide. They should never have this power.Dan8267 says

But again, that has nothing to do with socialized medicine, but rather with the state's power to look after the interests of children too young to make their own decisions and with parent's rights.

This is pure Orwellian double speak. "Its not about state power, its about state compassion." right...

I choose not to participate in this experiment of tyranny.

CBOEtrader says

This is a terrible thing for a court to decide. They should never have this power.

Then make that case. I can list reasons why the state should do this and reasons why the state should not be allowed to do this. I can do the same for the parents.

In any case, this issue has absolutely nothing to do with socialized medicine. It is an independent question.

CBOEtrader says

But again, that has nothing to do with socialized medicine, but rather with the state's power to look after the interests of children too young to make their own decisions and with parent's rights.

This is pure Orwellian double speak. "Its not about state power, its about state compassion." right...

You are full of shit. Everything the state does requires power. That does not mean the state is malevolent or that the state officials are apathetic.

When Child Protective Services takes a child from his or her parents, it's not out of spite. It's justified by the need to protect the child when the parents are incapable or unwilling to do so. Are you saying that CPS should be disbanded? If so, go ahead and make the case that the state should never under any circumstances take children away from their parents. (Hint: You will lose that argument and it's completely indefensible.)

If you concede that the state sometimes should take children away from their parents, no matter how rare you think those situations are, then you have just completely contradicted your current position.

But go on down this rabbit hole. It will be interesting.

Dan8267 says

This judgement has nothing whatsoever to do with socialize medicine. It is a state prohibiting parents from prolonging the suffering of a child for the false hope of a recovery.

The State and the hospitals already declared this poor child "brain dead" or vegetative. There is no child suffering to contend with. Besides, child suffering never comes into the equation of the pro-abortion groups who advocate abortions on demand through the 3rd trimester.

This should be all about the rights of the parents to attempt (with their own money) one last ditch effort to save their child........no matter how remote.

But Socialized medicine does not allow the rights of individuals to make their own medical choices.

socal2 says

The State and the hospitals already declared this poor child "brain dead" or vegetative. There is no child suffering to contend with.

Being vegetative does not mean the brain isn't experiencing pain, only that the brain cannot make the body express that. Are there still signals going from neuron to neuron in the brain?

socal2 says

But Socialized medicine does not allow the rights of individuals to make their own medical choices.

You clearly have not comprehended either article in this thread. This case isn't about socialized medicine. Even if the entire medical system in the U.K. were private, the court case would not be affected. The case is about whether or not the parents have the right to keep the child alive even if it is suffering and there is no real hope of recovery. Again, making the case that the state is wrong in its assessment of the medical evidence has nothing to do with the issue of socialized medicine.

You are using a suffering baby as a pawn in your political games.

Ceffer says

Are the parents just abusing the child's misery to get sympathy money from crowd funding, like the Moms who shave their kids' heads and claim they are suffering from cancer?

It is amazing how many people will devote resources to an emotionally compelling anecdote, while starving research that might actually prevent the same problem from happening over and over again. I hope the media that broadcast the parents' story will follow up to see what becomes of the money, e.g. whether it goes to medical research to prevent others from suffering the same fate. Still, it's the donors' money, and they could just as easily have wasted it on diet soda or tithes.

curious2 says

It is amazing how many people will devote resources to an emotionally compelling anecdote, while starving research that might actually prevent the same problem from happening over and over again.

insightful

How many people, including babies, die simply to increase the profits of health insurance companies?

Dan8267 says

How many people, including babies, die simply to increase the profits of health insurance companies?

Many thousands in America, but medical insurance companies are hardly alone in that. Consider the hospital corporations, which kill hundreds of thousands annually, or LBJ&Nixon's war in southeast Asia, which killed millions for no reason other than empowering the military-industrial complex including two commanders in chief of ostensibly opposite parties.

All true.

Ceffer says

Is the "experimental treatment" something real, or just another "laetrile con" that has no realistic expectation of medical legitimacy?

"Diagnosed at eight weeks old, Charlie has mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome and is considered to be only one of 16 babies worldwide with this disease. His condition is progressive and currently incurable and eventually fatal. Doctors are developing treatments for the various mitochondrial conditions, including the nucleoside treatment Charlie's parents have been fighting for.

At one year old, Arturito Estopiñan was diagnosed with a similar condition. He was the first person treated with the experimental treatment and is now six years old, becoming stronger each day. Arturito's parents, Arthur and Olga, were told that his condition was untreatable and that he was going to die. They refused to give up hope and found a hospital willing to treat their son. The treatment showed significant improvement within three months.

The Estopiñan family was the inspiration for Yates, who said, "All we've ever wanted is the chance for Charlie to try these drugs. Charlie will die anyway, so we have nothing to lose. Arthur and Olga have been a constant support and have given us the strength to carry on fighting for Charlie too." "

Ceffer says

Are the parents just abusing the child's misery to get sympathy money from crowd funding

"Yates said in April that they have thought "long and hard" about what to do with the money. They plan to donate some to the U.S. hospital willing to treat Charlie, while the rest will be put into a charity for other children with similar mitochondrial conditions "so that nobody else ever has to go through what we have."

She said, "We'd like to save other babies and children because these medications have been proven to work and we honestly have so much belief in them." "

https://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/european-human-rights-court-hands-down-death-sentence-for-baby

Also they are turning the life support off for the baby today.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/charlie-gard-latest-updates-baby-life-support-turned-off-today-chris-connie-yates-great-ormond-a7815906.html

Socialists are always murdering babies.

FortWayne says

Socialists are always murdering babies.

You're thinking of capitalists.

New York Times: Drug Goes From $13.50 a Tablet to $750, Overnight

Specialists in infectious disease are protesting a gigantic overnight increase in the price of a 62-year-old drug that is the standard of care for treating a life-threatening parasitic infection.

The drug, called Daraprim, was acquired in August by Turing Pharmaceuticals, a start-up run by a former hedge fund manager. Turing immediately raised the price to $750 a tablet from $13.50, bringing the annual cost of treatment for some patients to hundreds of thousands of dollars.

“What is it that they are doing differently that has led to this dramatic increase?” said Dr. Judith Aberg, the chief of the division of infectious diseases at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai. She said the price increase could force hospitals to use “alternative therapies that may not have the same efficacy.”

Turing’s price increase is not an isolated example. While most of the attention on pharmaceutical prices has been on new drugs for diseases like cancer, hepatitis C and high cholesterol, there is also growing concern about huge price increases on older drugs, some of them generic, that have long been mainstays of treatment.

Although some price increases have been caused by shortages, others have resulted from a business strategy of buying old neglected drugs and turning them into high-priced “specialty drugs.”

Reality has just proven beyond any doubt that capitalism, not socialized medicine, murders people including babies. Are you willing to change your position, or is greed more important to you than the lives of babies? I think we all know the answer, which is why you won't answer the question.