Columbia University Neurologist Will Examine Briti... - Page 4

chrystaltree · ‎05-10-2010

@itiswhatitis wrote:
@Isobel Archer wrote:
@proudlyfromNJ wrote:
@Annabellethecat66 wrote:
My friend told me about this. It sounds like their healthcare system isn't so good.

I worked with the Brits back in the mid and late 60's. They weren't very happy about the healthcare system back then.

However, the people I worked with was a Wing Commander (same thing as Lt Colonel) and his secretary who was employed by the Embassy. I don't remember about her insurance company.
It has to do with experimental and controversial drugs, etc. nothing to do with healthcare or wing commanders from the 60's.
Actually it does have to do with health care - and potentially what single payer would mean for us. In this case, the parents are not asking the British system to pay for their child's experimental care - they raised the money themselves to bring him to the U.S. for treatment. The British healthcare system, however, is saying - and is being supported by the government - that the boy should die. They don't believe further treatment will be effective and thus they are not allowing the parents to pursue further treatment.

Is that what we want here?
@Isobel Archer, is that what we have here?

No and we would not have that under any national healthcare PAYMENT system. You cannot compare what we do here with what GB does. It's like comparing apples and oranges. Our courts do indeed get involved in things like this now. It's not an issue of payment, the courts are deciding what is in the best interest of the child. Which is not necessarily what makes the parents feel good. That's why they are prohibiting them from leaving. Unlike here in the US, issues like this are handled by the healthcare system. Not sure why that's so hard for people to understand.

MyShadowLove · ‎01-05-2015

This is a heartwrenching story and my heart goes out to these parents for all that they are going through....I am posting a quote below that I found in an article online from ABC News....an American couple reaching out to the parents of precious Charlie Gard...which has given them a spurt of hope....their last hope....and these wonderful, courageous parents have my compassion and empathy as they do all they can for their Charlie!....May they find peace and comfort in knowing that they fought with all the strength they had for their precious baby's life.

This may not mean much to some but, for these parents, it is their last hope....I don't have to be a parent to understand and feel for what these parents are going through!

Quote from ABC News article...

"The parents of an American child with a different type of mitochondrial disorder spoke to Gard's parents, according to the Associated Press, about a nucleoside therapy treatment they have been using for their now 6-year-old son who appears to have shown some modest improvement."

~~Formerly known as "WildFlowers"~~

SeaMaiden · ‎03-10-2010

I am not a parent. I can not imagine how they might feel to even make a judgement.

I am sure you who have children can relate to how the parents feel and perhaps understand why they are so persistant to keep this child alive even though the quality of life for the child looks to be very bleak.

Isobel Archer · ‎04-04-2015

@WenGirl42 wrote:
@Isobel Archer wrote:
@proudlyfromNJ wrote:
@Annabellethecat66 wrote:
My friend told me about this. It sounds like their healthcare system isn't so good.

I worked with the Brits back in the mid and late 60's. They weren't very happy about the healthcare system back then.

However, the people I worked with was a Wing Commander (same thing as Lt Colonel) and his secretary who was employed by the Embassy. I don't remember about her insurance company.
It has to do with experimental and controversial drugs, etc. nothing to do with healthcare or wing commanders from the 60's.
Actually it does have to do with health care - and potentially what single payer would mean for us. In this case, the parents are not asking the British system to pay for their child's experimental care - they raised the money themselves to bring him to the U.S. for treatment. The British healthcare system, however, is saying - and is being supported by the government - that the boy should die. They don't believe further treatment will be effective and thus they are not allowing the parents to pursue further treatment.

Is that what we want here?
It isn't about single payer, though. It's about whether parents have the right to prolong their child's suffering when medical opinion is that it's hopeless and harmful. These doctors decided it was in Charlie's best interest to remove his life support, and have been forced to act against that decision (therefore prolonging harm in their opinion) for as long as the appeals have gone on. It would play out differently here (and has) because our judicial system is much more likely to allow the parents to make this decision. The doctors aren't "preventing" him from going, despite the headlines. They aren't agreeing to prolong his life support and give the treatments that would be necessary for him to be subjected to such a trip. The parents could take him on a flight tomorrow if they wanted to...but without additional (perceived to be harmful) intervention by the doctors, he'll die. It's very complicated and sad, and my heart breaks for Charlie, his parents, and these doctors.

Well obviously there are differing medical opinions about whether the case is hopeless or the U.S. doctors wouldn't have agreed to do the experimental treatment. Yes it has no guarantees, but would you want to be denied treatment - that you were willing to pay for yourself - just because the State said your quality of life was too poor and you should just agree to die?

This is not a case of parents insisting that life support be maintained indefinitely.

Nor are the parents even asking the British health care system to pay for this.

And I don't know how you can say the parents could "take him on a flight tomorrow." As I understand it, the hospital wouldn't even release him to die at home.

Cakers3 · ‎06-17-2015

@SeaMaiden wrote:
I am not a parent. I can not imagine how they might feel to even make a judgement.

I am sure you who have children can relate to how the parents feel and perhaps understand why they are so persistant to keep this child alive even though the quality of life for the child looks to be very bleak.

@SeaMaiden ^This.

Some keep equating the "quality of life" with the fact that this decision still belongs in the hands of the parents.

With professional guidance their decison is theirs and theirs alone. Not the courts.

This is about who is worthy to be be kept alive. Not a good sign of the times.

jmoymmv

"" Compassion is a verb."-Thich Nhat Hanh

chrystaltree · ‎05-10-2010

@SeaMaiden wrote:
I am not a parent. I can not imagine how they might feel to even make a judgement.

I am sure you who have children can relate to how the parents feel and perhaps understand why they are so persistant to keep this child alive even though the quality of life for the child looks to be very bleak.

As a mother of two and grandmother of two; I hope, pray and believe that I would put my child's interests before my own. I would not want my child to suffer needlessly, I would not want my child to go through numerous medical procedures and interventions for the sake of someone's research. I would want to be realistic and accept the realities of a tragic situation. As someone who believes in God and believes that there is something greater than the here and now; in this situation, I would have held and loved and and comforted my child as long as I could but his peace and comfort would be my primary concern. II would know when it was time to let nature take it's course.

jaxs mom · ‎04-18-2012

What the heck makes the British Gov think they have the right to limit where people get medical treatment?

Don't Change Your Authenticity for Approval

chrystaltree · ‎05-10-2010

@jaxs mom wrote:
What the heck makes the British Gov think they have the right to limit where people get medical treatment?

ahhhhh.....the law.

jaxs mom · ‎04-18-2012

@Isobel Archer wrote:
@proudlyfromNJ wrote:
@Annabellethecat66 wrote:
My friend told me about this. It sounds like their healthcare system isn't so good.

I worked with the Brits back in the mid and late 60's. They weren't very happy about the healthcare system back then.

However, the people I worked with was a Wing Commander (same thing as Lt Colonel) and his secretary who was employed by the Embassy. I don't remember about her insurance company.
It has to do with experimental and controversial drugs, etc. nothing to do with healthcare or wing commanders from the 60's.
Actually it does have to do with health care - and potentially what single payer would mean for us. In this case, the parents are not asking the British system to pay for their child's experimental care - they raised the money themselves to bring him to the U.S. for treatment. The British healthcare system, however, is saying - and is being supported by the government - that the boy should die. They don't believe further treatment will be effective and thus they are not allowing the parents to pursue further treatment.

Is that what we want here?

Yes, and why is that? What are the ramifications of people being able to seek medical care outside the country? Rhetorical question obviously, since we can't get into it here.

Don't Change Your Authenticity for Approval

Isobel Archer · ‎04-04-2015

@jaxs mom wrote:
@Isobel Archer wrote:
@proudlyfromNJ wrote:
@Annabellethecat66 wrote:
My friend told me about this. It sounds like their healthcare system isn't so good.

I worked with the Brits back in the mid and late 60's. They weren't very happy about the healthcare system back then.

However, the people I worked with was a Wing Commander (same thing as Lt Colonel) and his secretary who was employed by the Embassy. I don't remember about her insurance company.
It has to do with experimental and controversial drugs, etc. nothing to do with healthcare or wing commanders from the 60's.
Actually it does have to do with health care - and potentially what single payer would mean for us. In this case, the parents are not asking the British system to pay for their child's experimental care - they raised the money themselves to bring him to the U.S. for treatment. The British healthcare system, however, is saying - and is being supported by the government - that the boy should die. They don't believe further treatment will be effective and thus they are not allowing the parents to pursue further treatment.

Is that what we want here?
Yes, and why is that? What are the ramifications of people being able to seek medical care outside the country? Rhetorical question obviously, since we can't get into it here.

It's not even an issue of going outside the country for treatment. Here, if you don't like your doctor's assessment, you can get another opinion. If your doctor refuses treatment or insurance company - or Medicare - or Medicaid - refuses to pay for treatment, if you can raise the money, you can still get it.

That is NOT the case for Charlie Gard.

One of the big issues with single payer is that tradeoffs have to be made. The government can't afford to pay for every treatment. I know some will argue that it's better for the majority to get SOME treatment - even if they are denied lifesaving care, but I disagree.