I wouldn’t compare this to Charlie Gard. Little Charlie had a terminal condition. This boy had an operable heart defect.
It looks like the parents were taking matters into their own hands to pay for the surgery, by soliciting donations and so forth. That’s how it should be. Why should the taxpayers be on the hook for a surgery that costs $250,000? Let people who want and choose to help out do so.
I think the writer of the article was bringing together the fact that both babies were under the auspices of the government controlled healthcare system in Britain.
“But the National Health Service (NHS), the U.K.’s socialized health care system, informed Oliver’s parents that they didn’t have a single doctor who could do the surgery. Instead, he would be placed on a waiting list for a heart transplant that – even if it came to pass – would probably not extend his life to adulthood. “
You’re right = the parents eventually took control of the situation or at least tried to. But the issue was that the British government run healthcare system originally was dictating what could be done for this baby.
Duh, because they are forced to participate in National Health Care. They all pay for it with their tax dollars and because its such a dreadful system care is rationed, waiting times are measured in 6 months to years and babies are denied life saving surgeries that would be covered with traditional insurance.
We all have a terminal condition.
Charlie Gard should not have been allowed by UK know-it-alls in white coats to wither away and slowly die, by design, simply because his condition was deemed untreatable. From a humane and moral perspective, the situations of Charlie Gard and Baby Oliver are indistinguishable.
Blessings and prayers for Baby Oliver and his parents, and to all the Charlie Gards and Terry Schiavos of the world, now and to come.