Shouldn't the British government allowed the parents of baby Charlie Gard to take him to the states?
I
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
Abrienda · 26-30, F
You let "government" decide who shall receive medical treatment and who shall not especially when it has NOTHING TO DO WITH THEM AND WILL COST THEM NOTHING then you have no more right to life than a stray dog - lees cause at least there are people dedicated to animal "rights"! Want to REALLY worry about something in the news? Worry about this case.
@Abrienda quite so
Burnley123 · 41-45, M
@Abrienda It is the court and medical professionals who decided, not politicians.
For me that is better than leaving it to a private insurance company.
For me that is better than leaving it to a private insurance company.
Abrienda · 26-30, F
@Burnley123 The courts and "medical professionals" in Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, and China today were not admirable protectors of human rights and a famous Supreme Court Justice in America was in favor of sterilization for those below a certain IQ.
I do not believe I should hand over the right to seek the best possible medical care I can afford for MY children or anyone else in my family to some bureaucrat regardless of their title.
So as my father would say we must agree to disagree...unless of course I ever get the chance to jump on you wrestle you to the ground and pummel you with my fists...I am only 5 foot but though small I am mighty!
I do not believe I should hand over the right to seek the best possible medical care I can afford for MY children or anyone else in my family to some bureaucrat regardless of their title.
So as my father would say we must agree to disagree...unless of course I ever get the chance to jump on you wrestle you to the ground and pummel you with my fists...I am only 5 foot but though small I am mighty!
Burnley123 · 41-45, M
@Abrienda Britain is not Soviet Russia or Nazi Germany. The courts are not stopping Charlie Gard on grounds of healthcare system or the right to go private (you are allowed to go private in the UK) but on grounds of medical ethics.
Now reasonable people can debate the medical ethics but the inferred claim of political motivation is a joke. If not, provide evidence please.
Now reasonable people can debate the medical ethics but the inferred claim of political motivation is a joke. If not, provide evidence please.
Abrienda · 26-30, F
@Burnley123 I never said it was. You are putting up a straw man. But don't be so proud to think government cannot be abusive - yours or any other. If you were a Catholic in 1805 England you might have a different opinion when confronted by the Test Acts or Act of Uniformity, yes? My position is that when confronted by government versus the rights of the individual it is best to side with the rights of the individual for EVERYONE'S sake.
@Abrienda good point
SatanBurger · 36-40, F
@Burnley123 Eh in my opinion only it seems like politics and medicine are not so far apart. There's a lot of factors that have me thinking "medical professionals" are no different than politicians. Too much to go into here.
Just look at advertising and the mass control they have over people. They want you sick but only sick "just enough." If that's not politics then I don't know.
Just look at advertising and the mass control they have over people. They want you sick but only sick "just enough." If that's not politics then I don't know.
Burnley123 · 41-45, M
@Abrienda I should say at this point that I actually disagree with the court's decision on grounds of parental choice. They have managed to raise their own money anyway.
What I am disagreeing with is the argument that this is a 'Government' decision and the implied political motovation, which has not been evidenced by anyone posting on here.
@SatanBurger @Abrienda [quote]Just look at advertising and the mass control they have over people. They want you sick but only sick "just enough." If that's not politics then I don't know.[/quote]
Advertising is largely something done by the private sector and I know the American system tries to push a lot of drugs on here. I won't argue with you there. One of the advantages of the UK model is that, with the profit motive taken out, you can have more faith that decisions are made for medical reasons only.
[quote]There's a lot of factors that have me thinking "medical professionals" are no different than politicians. Too much to go into here. [/quote]
It still doesn't explain a cynical motive in this particular case. The current UK Government is Conservative and moderately anti-NHS and has just gone into coalition with an anti-abortion Christian party called the DUP. Doctors make decisions based on medical ethics and the courts make decisions based on laws of medical ethics (which we can debate).
What I am disagreeing with is the argument that this is a 'Government' decision and the implied political motovation, which has not been evidenced by anyone posting on here.
@SatanBurger @Abrienda [quote]Just look at advertising and the mass control they have over people. They want you sick but only sick "just enough." If that's not politics then I don't know.[/quote]
Advertising is largely something done by the private sector and I know the American system tries to push a lot of drugs on here. I won't argue with you there. One of the advantages of the UK model is that, with the profit motive taken out, you can have more faith that decisions are made for medical reasons only.
[quote]There's a lot of factors that have me thinking "medical professionals" are no different than politicians. Too much to go into here. [/quote]
It still doesn't explain a cynical motive in this particular case. The current UK Government is Conservative and moderately anti-NHS and has just gone into coalition with an anti-abortion Christian party called the DUP. Doctors make decisions based on medical ethics and the courts make decisions based on laws of medical ethics (which we can debate).