From WSJ this morning

Charlie Gard, an 11-month old British child with a rare genetic disease, is today the most famous baby in the world. For all the wrong reasons.

Even as he remains on life support at a British hospital, he has attracted the attention of the President of the United States, the pope, the British courts and the European Court of Human Rights. All because his government has backed medical experts who say the experimental treatment offered by hospitals abroad—treatments his family hopes to try and is willing to pay for themselves—would only prolong his suffering.

On Friday came news that the hospital asked for a new court hearing after researchers at two hospitals abroad offered “fresh evidence” on experimental treatments for the baby’s condition.

It may be that the experts the British and European courts invoke are right, that even with treatment Charlie won’t live much longer than he might with new interventions. But it’s not their decision to make. Or shouldn’t be.

Charlie’s mother says the hospital won’t allow her and her husband to bring their boy home, meaning that if he is to die, it will be with the hospital and not at home with those who love him. Which raises a question: Whose baby is Charlie, anyway—his parents’ or the state’s? In this delicate case, Britain’s national care system has elevated technical expertise over parental love.

Europe is much further along than America in its aggressive secularization and single-payer health-care control. Those values and priorities are on prominent display here, with an infant’s court-ordered guardian invoking “quality of life” as a reason for not allowing his parents to try experimental treatment.

Precedents matter when a society is confronted with these dilemmas. If the courts prevail in Charlie’s case, it isn’t so difficult to imagine another court ruling that a child with severe Down syndrome or some other genetic disease also doesn’t have the right quality of life. Who decides? Our vote remains with the parents.

If someone is willing to foot the bill, then whoever is Currently making the decisions should yield.
Right now the costs are being Paid by the People, and the government has a fiduciary duty to them. If someone steps up and is willing to accept the responsibility for the costs, then they are the decision makers.

verslagen1 wrote on 07/11/17 at 08:32:31:


Here in the US?

T And T Garage wrote on 07/11/17 at 08:33:07:

It is a reality where ever it decided financially what service is rendered.

A political football, wow, imagine that  

I wonder if the little guy had AIDS, if that would change anything?

The Logic of the parents fails, but the Point Is
You said they were determined to continue the farce.

u don't want to pay for a national health,.. but you would pay to keep this baby in it's living hell indefinitely

I never said that.
I pointed out TWICE why the parents don't have a right to demand ongoing life prolonging services while the people Pay for it. Especially IF the problems he has are not something that can be repaired.

Slippy slope, straw man, fearmongering, ...

Serowbot wrote on 07/11/17 at 10:25:10:


Uh, partial birth abortions:

EXTREMELY rare, where the mothers health is at risk necessitating this type of procedure.
It wouldn't be effected anyway, with the restrictions placed on current law, only where a woman decides late in term that she doesn't want a baby anymore.

Argument: If pro abortionist agree to this restriction, the pro life will just extend it to ALL abortions.

Cutting spending:

Budget reduction, still a larger budget than the previous one.

Argument against: Its a cut. No, its a reduction......old people will have to eat dog food, drink dirty water, etc.

Healthcare:

More people have healthcare now than ever before.

Fact: More people have it, yet can use it, because the out of pocket is WAY too high and not affordable.

I could go on, but why?

Next.