RIP Charlie Gard

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by samcraig, Jul 28, 2017.

  1. samcraig macrumors P6

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2009
    #1
  2. BoxerGT2.5 macrumors 68000

    BoxerGT2.5

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2008
    #2
    Why would they want to bring him to a horrible healthcare system? I mean look at where the US ranks.
     
  3. yaxomoxay macrumors 68000

    yaxomoxay

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Location:
    Texas
  4. ThisBougieLife macrumors 65816

    ThisBougieLife

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2016
    Location:
    SF Bay Area, California
  5. Raid macrumors 68020

    Raid

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    Toronto
    #5
    Sad to see a kid and his parents suffer. Can't blame the parents for wanting to do everything they could, can't really blame the doctors. The treatment that the parents were after is still under evaluation and it wouldn't have reversed the damage already done to the poor kid.

    It's not about healthcare systems at all.
     
  6. Herdfan macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2011
  7. tbobmccoy macrumors 6502a

    tbobmccoy

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    #7
    This has nothing to do with single payer healthcare. The U.K. has different parental rights for minors in medical matters, nothing to do with who was funding the healthcare at all.
     
  8. rjohnstone macrumors 68040

    rjohnstone

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2007
    Location:
    PHX, AZ.
    #8
    Tough call on that one. His survival rate was pretty low regardless.
     
  9. rjohnstone macrumors 68040

    rjohnstone

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2007
    Location:
    PHX, AZ.
    #9
    They make be so for general healthcare.
    When it comes to advanced experimental treatments (which is what he needed), the U.S. is one of the best.
     
  10. BoxerGT2.5 macrumors 68000

    BoxerGT2.5

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2008
    #10
    It was a rhetorical question. ;)
     
  11. vrDrew macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #11
    American Conservatives looking to the tragedy of Charlie Gard are seriously barking up the wrong tree.

    Charlie Gard didn't die because a Government "death panel" didn't want to pay for his care. He died because he was born with an incurable genetic disease. The case reached the newspapers because his Doctors reached a medical conclusion that he had no chance of recovery, and that on-going treatment - including intubation - was causing him suffering.

    Private Health insurance in the United States would never pay for the sort of experimental and unproven treatment proposed by the US doctor.

    One thing I can say in favor of Britain's NHS and single payer: Charlie's parents probably had zero out-of-pocket expenses for his treatment. If the parents had financial need, they would actually have received money to help pay for their transport to the clinic or hospital where he was being treated. If it had been practical, the NHS would have paid for in-home carers so that he could have died at home.

    It is a tragedy when any child dies. My heart goes out to his parents, and I in no way blame them for fighting for their child. In the end, however, I think they recognized that they could not let their pain at losing their child outweigh the suffering that he was undergoing.
     
  12. jerwin, Jul 28, 2017
    Last edited: Jul 28, 2017

    jerwin macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    #12
    http://www.slate.com/articles/healt...a_shows_how_we_overestimate_new_medicine.html

     
  13. nebo1ss macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2010
    #13
    When you are desperate you grab at any straw. The American doctor involved
    Dr Michio Hirano was probably unethical in giving hope for the experimental treatment
    which had not been used in this type of situation before and which it is claimed he had
    a financial interest.

    The parents went through hell but I think most parents would grab at any chance to save their son.
     
  14. SoggyCheese macrumors regular

    SoggyCheese

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2016
    Location:
    Maybe UK, Maybe Spain, maybe even elsewhere
    #14
    I can't even imagine how they must feel right now. They were fighting the inevitable, but who wouldn't in their situation? Poor people.
     
  15. MadeTheSwitch macrumors 6502a

    MadeTheSwitch

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2009
    #15
    Poor little guy. Never had a chance. The medical community must work harder (and faster!) at solving these issues. I'm sure I will get critized for saying that (don't care) but I do think that our technology and knowledge isn't where it should be given the date on the calendar. Still too much unsolved, unknown and uncured allowing people to die. And that saddens me and frustrates me greatly.
     
  16. Herdfan macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2011
    #16
    You are absolutely correct.

    But that same private insurance company could not prevent his parents from paying for it themselves. That is the argument here. If the parents, or let's remove the fact that he was an infant, or a spouse wanted to pay for the treatment, the insurance company would have no standing to say no.

    But in this case, the government which controls access to healthcare, said no. That is the problem I have.
     
  17. nebo1ss macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2010
    #17
    You misunderstand the situation completely. This has nothing to do with the government controlling access to healthcare this is an issue of the childs rights. The Hospital and subsequently the Courts decided that the child was clinically dead and had rights which would be abused to continue further with experimental treatment.

    Great Ormond street hospital is one of the best children's hospitals in the world.
     
  18. NightGeometry macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2004
    #18
    The government per se didn't say no, the legal system did. It was a judicial decision in the end.
     
  19. vrDrew macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #19
    In the United States, doctors and health insurance companies cannot prevent a parent trying to "cure" their child's homosexuality or autism by means of home-administered electro-shock treatments.

    But if a parent tried to do that, even in the US, child-welfare services or the police would step in. And a Court would undoubtedly take away those parent's right to keep hooking their kid up to a car battery.

    That is probably a better analogy to the Charlie Gard case than any argument against single-payer. The British Court had to make a decision, and decided that continued efforts to keep Charlie alive simply amounted to unnecessary prolongation of his suffering.
     
  20. Herdfan macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2011
    #20
    But wasn't it a judicial decision upholding the NHS's previous decision to not allow treatment.?

    We all need to keep one thing in mind, both countries (USA and UK) have wonderful treatments for numerous diseases. All of which started out as experimental treatments.

    All that said, I don't know that I would have made the same decision as Charlie's parents did. I watched my grandmother be kept alive due to modern medicine long past when she should have gone and I don't want to put my own daughter through what my mom went through. At some point you just need to accept it is over and do your best to move on.
     
  21. bandrews macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    #21
    The tragic thing is that when someone is so desperate and willing to pay, there is always someone willing to take their money to tell them what they want to hear.
    There may have been some benefit to this experimental treatment but this guy just smacks of a publicity seeker.
    A good friend of mine recently committed suicide after paying a German clinic thousands of pounds to cure her of a disease she believed was causing her depression despite numerous blood tests in the UK coming back negative.
     
  22. SoggyCheese macrumors regular

    SoggyCheese

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2016
    Location:
    Maybe UK, Maybe Spain, maybe even elsewhere
    #22
    The doctors concluded he was suffering and there was no hope of Charlie stabilising, let alone recovering.

    As sad as it is, sometimes doctors cannot save a life however hard they try. This particular genetic condition meant that the mitochondrial DNA in Charlie's brain and liver had severely broken down, as it was continuing to do in his muscle tissue. He had suffered seizures to the point where he was only being kept functioning by machines. I can't even say for sure whether he was alive by that point. His body was still able to function providing the machines continued to help it, but everything else that made him human in the normal way we see it had already stopped. Even if the experimental nucleoside therapy proposed by Dr. Hirano had managed to replenish his mitochondrial DNA levels the damage was already done. The little boy was gone.

    Now understandably the parents could not accept this. I mean, let's face it, how many of us could if we found ourselves in their position? But the courts have to rule on evidence, not emotion, and in this case all of the evidence supported the doctors' position that nothing more could be done. Even Dr. Hirano admitted that it was too late for his therapy to have any effect.

    This wasn't an NHS Death Panel in the form the likes of Ted Cruz and other haters of universal healthcare would spin it. This was extremely professional and experienced medical staff conceding that they were out of options.

    And yes, the entire thing is utterly heartbreaking. We all get that.
     
  23. bandrews macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    #23
    It wasn't about the cost of providing the healthcare, it was about the suffering of the child. Healthcare professionals have a duty of care to their patients. The doctors and subsequently the judge ruled that the treatment would not improve Charlie's condition, only prolong his suffering.
     
  24. SusanK macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2012
    #24
    It's possible they wanted their child to have a chance to live. All the rah, rah, rah about single payer is great if you want an able bodied person to get a free flu shot. When things get tight you need experts not a death panel.

    It's disgraceful that Charlie's parents were not permitted the parental rights to take their child to a place that may have been able to help him. The parents raised 1.6 million and expected not a dang dime from their home home country. The court system (death panel) just kept grinding down the clock until there was no chance.


    http://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/2017/ju...arents-of-charlie-gard-to-keep-up-their-fight

    I suppose the response to this will be US health care sucks. I will not be able to respond without being banned. Please understand the lack of a response.

    I'll stay on this side of the pond and contribute a few $$ to my own care even if I have to skip the latest iPhone or forgo cable.

    Thanks!
     
  25. mrkramer macrumors 603

    mrkramer

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Location:
    Somewhere
    #25
    I don't think this has anything to do with a single payer system and has a lot more to do with laws being written in the UK where the child's best interest is put first rather than allowing parents to prolong suffering and pain for the child in a futile attempt for a cure.
     

Share This Page