Britain's Top Court Won't Let Dying Baby Go to US

[High Fidelity]

The Parliament disarmed their people making them sitting ducks for terrorist scum now.

Right because guns are working wonders for you guys, hey?

Get a grip.

 

[High Fidelity]

The Parliament disarmed their people making them sitting ducks for terrorist scum now.

Right because guns are working wonders for you guys, hey?

Get a grip.

 

[Ironhold]

Right because guns are working wonders for you guys, hey?

It's down to a mix of availability and training.

There's a reason why Switzerland is so often hailed as an example of how firearm culture can work:

The Swiss Difference: A Gun Culture That Works | TIME.com

 

[ThatRobGuy]

It's down to a mix of availability and training.

There's a reason why Switzerland is so often hailed as an example of how firearm culture can work:

The Swiss Difference: A Gun Culture That Works | TIME.com

I always use the Czech Republic as an example since they're laws are even closer to ours (you can still own AR's, concealed carry, etc...) and they still maintain a murder rate that's less than most of Europe.

They've just made some practical common sense restrictions upstream and have had some really good results.

 

[Ironhold]

I always use the Czech Republic as an example since they're laws are even closer to ours (you can still own AR's, concealed carry, etc...) and they still maintain a murder rate that's less than most of Europe.

They've just made some practical common sense restrictions upstream and have had some really good results.

Number of Deaths Due to Injury by Firearms per 100,000 Population

I keep flummoxing gun control types by linking them to this page.

The US average national firearms-related death rate from all causes is currently at 10.3 / 100,000 residents. Texas, which is the Mecca of gun rights, is only at 10.7 / 100,000 , which isn't too far off of the average. Current #1 is Alaska, which is at 19.2 / 100,000. Former #1 is Washington DC, which had a rate of 28.8 during the period in which it had its private firearm ownership ban in place.

None of this fits the pattern of "more guns = more deaths!".

 

[ThatRobGuy]

None of this fits the pattern of "more guns = more deaths!".

Yeah, people on both sides tend to want to cherry pick the states/countries that fit their narrative, but when evaluating the big picture, there's no observable trend one way or the other.

There's high-gun/high-crime, high-gun/low-crime, low-gun/high-crime, low-gun/low-crime, and every conceivable combination (to every conceivable degree) one can imagine.

The problem is people want to speak in both absolutes and extremes when discussing the matter. It's either "gun's are bad, gotta lock them way down like the UK", or "guns prevent crime, we need to have a few restrictions as possible". The Czech Republic has shown that all you really need are a few balanced common-sense controls in place and you're good to go.

 

[Trogdor the Burninator]

Death panels in action.

Yep - here's some in action....

When assisted suicide legislation was officially passed in California in 2016, Packer experienced the ultimate slap in the face: her insurance company denied the coverage of critical chemotherapy treatment that her doctors recommended for her condition.

Her insurance would, however, cover end-of-life drugs for just $1.20.

Insurance denied her chemo treatment. But it covered drugs for suicide.

A Nevada physician says insurance companies in states where assisted suicide is legal have refused to cover expensive, life-saving treatments for his patients but have offered to help them end their lives instead.

Insurance companies denied treatment to patients, offered to pay for assisted suicide, doctor claims

Gillen Washington, a student at Northern Arizona University, had been getting medication for an immunodeficiency disease since 2011. But when he went to his clinic in November 2014 for the monthly dose, a nurse told him his insurance company had denied it.

Soon after, the plan sent him a letter saying his bloodwork was outdated and didn’t show that the treatment was medically necessary, Washington’s attorney said.

When An Insurer Balks And Treatment Stops

And on and on it goes

Private insurers - the real death panels

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Private insurers - the real death panels

If we are going to use the term "death panels"...you're correct that our US private insurance companies would fit that description much more closely than anything in the UK courts or UK healthcare system...although, I'll say, anytime someone uses the term "death panels", it's almost always emotionally charged hyperbole (which, I'm sure you were doing it intentionally in this case to illustrate the absurdity of the other poster's claim).

However, in this case, I'm pretty sure that a few people are merely employing this hyperbole to further their political stances, both against the UK healthcare model, and in favor of their conspiracy theories about mainstream medicine.

Let's be honest, if this were a story about US parents wanting to take their child out of the hospital for medicinal marijuana, and a conservative judge in their home state blocked it, those same folks would be taking the polar opposite stance and siding with the judge... But, because this is a left-leaning court in a country with universal healthcare, they're pretending that this "experimental procedure", which is nothing more than a modern $750k version of "snake oil", is somehow a credible treatment, and "that evil UK court is giving this baby a death sentence when a cure is available".

If you notice, in all of my previous posts attempting to delve into the details of what this procedure is, and why it's eerily similar to how the Burzynski Clinic operates (showing all of the red flags for being exploitative alt-medicine), they ignore it and have no interest is discussing that, and instead circle back around to one-liners about how "the courts are playing God" and "this is a matter of life and death", etc....

 

[He is Risen 72]

I guess Obama care was all about death panels, thanks for proving that.

 

[trunks2k]

I guess Obama care was all about death panels, thanks for proving that.

??? This has absolutely nothing to do with Obamacare.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

??? This has absolutely nothing to do with Obamacare.

They're just dodging the topics...

There were a handful of posters using the "death panel" accusations about the UK courts, touting a bunch of emotionally charged language about "life & death" and how "these parents are being robbed of getting the ability to get the best treatment for their child"

When I explained what the proposed treatment was, the fact that only 16 people have ever tried it and it's never been shown to have any effect, and listed out the numerous red flags that strongly suggest that this has predatory (or scam pseudo-science) alt-medicine written all over it, they just pretended not to see it and opted to just toss out one liners directed at me about

"well, we see what your opinion of life is"
"this is a matter of life and death"
"your opinion is noted about parents not having the right to do what's best for their child"

To acknowledge that it's quackery would negate their whole stance on the matter, so they're speaking of this treatment like it's an established treatment or like it's a clinical trial on a promising new treatment from a reputable institution.

The fact of the matter is, this is $750k exploitative alt-medicine that offers no positive prognosis for efficacy.

 

[RDKirk]

So is the actual legal issue that the hospital refuses to release the child into the parents' custody?

 

[RDKirk]

I found another link of the story. Then another.

From what I'm reading it's a drug that can be given to the child. This poor thing has the rarest form of it, and the only one in the world with it. This child has already has irreversible brain damage caused by his condition, and it sounds like machines are the only thing keeping him alive. He is also a patient that is worse off than any patient that has tried this medicine - that they call therapy.

I have to wonder from what I'm reading if this poor thing would even survive the trip. This would be a tough call.

Having personally been in the situation of being the guardian of a loved one with irreversible brain damage requiring continuous life support, what I now know from experience is that I would take them off life support and let God handle it as He sees fit.

When Paul said, "To live is Christ and to die is gain," he was not contemplating brain dead bodies kept functioning by artificial life support.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

So is the actual legal issue that the hospital refuses to release the child into the parents' custody?

There's that, and the aspect of the courts potentially protecting the parents from getting gouged for $750,000.

If this were a legitimate or credible clinical trial, the "doctor"'s name would be provided and it would be taking place at a qualified medical research hospital, and most importantly, in real clinical trials, there's no cost to the participant.

In this case it's: "unnamed doctor" at an "undisclosed location" charging an amount that's downright predatory.


However, their protection laws aren't something exclusive to the UK and we have many of the same protection laws in our country (with good reason). If someone had a child who was running a 105 fever and suffering from a severe bout of spinal meningitis, the courts (and child services) would step in if the parents strolled into the hospital and said "we're going to check them out of this facility, we want to take them to a naturopath who's going to try to treat him with Acai Berries and Ginger root".

 

[Arcangl86]

So is the actual legal issue that the hospital refuses to release the child into the parents' custody?

It seems to me that the issue is that the NHS is refusing to pay for this treatment because they don't see any chance of it actually improving the condition.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

It seems to me that the issue is that the NHS is refusing to pay for this treatment because they don't see any chance of it actually improving the condition.

Actually, the parents already raised the funding via crowdfunding sources online.

https://www.gofundme.com/please-help-to-save-charlies-life

NHS isn't under any obligation to pay for any procedures in the US (even if it were a verified credible procedure, which this one isn't...)

The court's decision was based on three factors
1) the best interests of the child who would likely endure more suffering trying to travel to the US
2) the procedure/treatment in question has no evidence suggesting it's credible
3) the amount that the unnamed doctor is trying to charge them is downright predatory


Basically, the court is saying "you can't subject a child to more suffering to pursue a treatment that won't provide any beneficial outcome by a questionable doctor who's ripping you off"


However, it's being portrayed like a scenario where parents wanted to bring their child to UCLA Medical Center to undergo neurological treatment or a promising clinical trial. Based on how vaguely it was being described in the GoFundMe campaign, the fact that it raised so much money, and the comments from the donors would lead me believe that, unfortunately, that's how it was sold to them as well.

 

[Hank77]

Let's not go there with UK healthcare. (I can come back to it if you wish....you must admit there are some issues, however.)

Your opinion is noted regarding this child and who has the authority to decide if this child lives or dies.

"The Thinning" comes to mind.

Thank you kindly.

No the UK healthcare is just saying they won't pay for this treatment.

A US insurance company will not pay for 'experimental, unproven, expensive' treatments, either.

 

[Hank77]

Death panels in action.

US insurance companies would not pay for a treatment like this either. So that means the private health insurance companies in the US also have 'death panels'. You didn't know this?

 

[MyOwnSockPuppet]

So is the actual legal issue that the hospital refuses to release the child into the parents' custody?

If the hospital released the child into the parent's custody then the problem would resolve itself within about four minutes.
The child has irreversible brain damage, is blind, deaf, incapable of movement or survival off of a ventilator.
The condition that the child has is irretrievably terminal.

The court has to act in the best interest of the child, and with the expert advice they have received they consider that dying very shortly in a UK hospital in relative comfort is better than a mad dash to the US, which (if he survives an intercontinental flight) will result in him dying while some quack gives him the equivalent of a three quarter million dollar chicken soup cure.

 

[RDKirk]

If the hospital released the child into the parent's custody then the problem would resolve itself within about four minutes.
The child has irreversible brain damage, is blind, deaf, incapable of movement or survival off of a ventilator.
The condition that the child has is irretrievably terminal.

The court has to act in the best interest of the child, and with the expert advice they have received they consider that dying very shortly in a UK hospital in relative comfort is better than a mad dash to the US, which (if he survives an intercontinental flight) will result in him dying while some quack gives him the equivalent of a three quarter million dollar chicken soup cure.

As a technical matter, I'm not sure exactly what the court is saying "no" to. If the family has enough money (apparently over a million dollars already--or pledged, at least), then they apparently have enough to provide for whatever medical travel arrangements are necessary and all they need is a visa from the US.

I don't see from the information given what point there was for the court to rule upon, unless the hospital has physical custody and is refusing to deliver the child to the parents.

 

[RDKirk]

US insurance companies would not pay for a treatment like this either. So that means the private health insurance companies in the US also have 'death panels'. You didn't know this?

I had a friend die of cancer, very possibly because his insurance refused to pay for a new procedure in which radioactive "pills" with a specific short half-life would have been inserted directly into the tumor. The doctor that developed the procedure had actually used it upon herself (among others) and remained cancer free afterward.