Posted on 07/26/2017 9:18:23 AM PDT by Hojczyk
the hospital and the British Parliament will make suitably grave remarks about how tragic it is to lose "this beautiful baby" (whom they killed), and how much their hearts go out to "his loving parents" (whom they stripped of their rights, their dignity, and their baby).
But the public outcry will die down; Charlie's death will, given the time-distorting elasticity of memory, begin to look like a vindication (rather than condemnation) of the government's decision; and the real issues at the heart of this case – progressivism's crushing of the private family and socialized medicine's absolute rejection of the natural rights to self-ownership and self-preservation – will be lost in the fog.
The fog. We use that expression a lot in this era. The fog of misinformation. The fog of mixed motives. The fog of conflicting interpretations.
The fog is somewhat endemic to the human condition. It is also a chief weapon of progressive authoritarianism. All that progressives need to advance their agenda is the chutzpah to force their will on the people at first – and then the willpower to wait, to ignore the pleas for freedom, the cries of justice, until slowly, inevitably, the fog begins to settle around all of us, and, like Charlie Gard's parents, we are forced to give up, tired and forlorn.
This is how progressives have defeated Chris and Connie. This is how Hillary Clinton defeated the Benghazi hearings. This is how Obamacare, which was hated at the outset and forced upon a country that didn't want it, is now almost universally accepted as America's historical wedge leading to full single-payer health care, exactly as it was intended to be.
The fog is progressively swallowing all of us, individual liberty is fading into the mist, step by step. This is how socialism wins.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4730974/US-doctor-offered-help-Charlie-Gard-speaks-out.html
what a sad situation...
If the people of Great Britain were truly free, Charlie Gard probably would have died a long time ago.
This is the moral and philosophical paradox of this kind of story ... enjoying the benefits of a totalitarian, government-run health care system while it works in your favor, then complaining about the brutal totalitarian nature of the system when it renders a decision you don't like?
The fact that they did not want to pay....okay, they’re death culture Socialists.
But they would not even allow them to take their child out of the country? What in the hell did we fight to keep them on this side of the Berlin Wall for?
This physician acted unethically. His miracle cure had never been tested on this type of genetic condition, therefore he had no basis to say this could have helped .
He never reviewed the records before giving the family false hope. Any ethical physician would have reviewed the records before giving out their evaluation.
He never physically examined this baby, even though the hospital asked him to in January. He never showed up.
I think he is trying to cover his butt because I would not be surprised if the NY state licensure board investigates his actions after this baby dies.
His financial interest in this case is irrelevant.
thats pretty low to offer hope to someone knowing there is none...
How can you know that they wouldn't have had private medical insurance if that were the system in the UK? The Gards did not create the NHS.
If this is true, then he ought to lose his medical license.
A doctor who does this sort of thing is like those quack psychiatrists who make public statements "diagnosing" President Trump with various mental problems.
He stood by on the sidelines for months giving the parents false hope and not even trying to advocate for his drug trial to the actual doctors taking care of this baby. Did he even call them up on the phone? When he was finally told to put up or shut up, he backed down in court. Now, he is trying to save his butt.
He acted like a quack. A lot of these academic physicians think they are gods, but a lot of them suck at actual clinical medicine.
1. That's not really relevant here. I don't recall the Gards clamoring for private medical insurance six months ago -- do you? Like I said -- they were perfectly fine with "the system" when it worked for them. I don't blame them for this. I'm just pointing out the paradox at work here.
2. If they had private medical insurance they would run into the same problems with someone making a decision where an experimental treatment would be rejected. The only difference is that the decision would be made by an insurance company employee rather than a government bureaucrat. And at the end of the day their final recourse would be a court case against the insurance company ... which puts us right back here with a government-paid judge making a life-or-death decision.
I'm not trying to be funny here, but it's worth noting that you never see cases like this involving Amish people. That's the trade-off they've made to preserve their liberties, and there are both positive and negative sides to it.
Don’t trash these parents. They’ve been trying to get that baby out of the UK and into America for over a half year. They never asked for the government of the UK to pay for that. They just wanted the “permission” to take him.
And FYI they raised money to pay for the treatment in America too. This can’t be about money since all the UK has to do is let him go and he ceases to be an expense to them. This is about control. I guess that long history of serfdom has them thinking about freedom differently.
I agree that this case isn't just about money (from the British side), but at the end of the day there will ALWAYS be a decision made that is based on financial considerations.
One thing that always bothered me about this case was that the hospital had no qualms about overruling the parents in medical decisions that didn't even involve the hospital. Who could argue against the wishes of the parents to simply bring the kid home, if he is going to die anyway?
At the same time, we should recognize that there is definitely a gray area between parental rights and the best interests of a child -- and it often involves medical care for children. Parents get prosecuted for child abuse in the U.S. all the time in cases where they made decisions related to medical care that endanger the health of the child. Most states have religious exemptions written into their child abuse statutes, but I believe 15-16 states do not.
Children have traditionally been thought to be under the exclusive authority of the parents. In the last century the “best interest of the child” argument has become a factor. I googled that to see what is the constitutional basis for courts to get involved and override one or both parents. While not a very thorough search on my part, it seems to be derived from judicial rulings that are largely done in the last thirty years. Of course in family court, best interest goes back further when men get their parental rights taken away so the mother can exert near total control.
Give courts enough time and they become the law, not interpreters of it.
The “game” that it gave away is the Hillary didn’t give a **** about “Chris” - as she referred to Ambassador Stevens - or any other person not currently useful to Hillary. Emphatically including the families of the fallen.A characteristic which clearly made her “the most qualified person ever to run for the presidency.”
</sarcasm>
Right. But a parent still faces criminal prosecution for leaving a child to die in a hot car. Parents have authority over children and are responsible for making decisions for them, but children are human beings who are supposed to be protected under the law.
The intricacies of that term "protected under the law" have a lot of gray areas -- and a whole bunch of slippery slopes in either direction -- for sure.
So in this case the state is using what logic to remove parental rights? It can’t be to be “protected under the law” unless you view death as a good thing/best thing for the baby.
You could surely make the case that the state has an interest in protecting the rights of the child if the parents want to try some outlandish "experimental treatment" like setting him on fire or giving him a head transplant. Of course, that would still involve SOMEONE drawing a line between what constitutes a legitimate medical treatment and what constitutes deranged lunacy.
There is absolutely no reason for the state to prevent the parents from taking the child home in a case where no more medical intervention is proscribed and the child is inevitably going to die a natural death. I have said from the start that I would have no problem with Charlie Gard's parents removing him from the hospital at gunpoint -- and shooting anyone who gets in their way -- if the hospital refuses to release him.
You are a disgusting Aktion T4 apologist (Look it up). This likely means you and your fellow death with so called dignity crowd have extreme bias against the disabled.
If nothing else- I hope laws are changed to acknowledge that if you or someone else of your ilk is given any capacity to decide life and death matters, that your prejudice is noted and that a person without this malice can represent the incapacitated person.
We would have less sickening displays of callousness by so called "doctors" and "judge" like what we have witnessed against this baby and his family, if laws were changed and "death for the disabled" advocates were identified from the start.
We would also probably be spared from the continous lying and distorting that death advocates do in order to cover up their vile intent.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.