- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 7/28/17 at 3:04 pm to AUCE05
quote:
Facts should be posted before people start getting emotional.
The fact that the hospital applied to have ventillation removed and stopped treatment on February 24, won the case in April then fought tooth and nail with the family until all of the parent's legal options had been exhausted. Then the hospital who filed to stop treatment appealed the decision in light of new evidence that there was treatment that could be used in July, only to have tests come back showing it was too late. You are defending this, but this is the issue with single payer systems. The government weighs cost of treatment vs a life and doesn't allow a second opinion. The hospital here refuted a second opinion for five months before going oh shite there is another way.
Posted on 7/28/17 at 3:06 pm to LNCHBOX
quote:
No one in this thread is making an emotional argument.
Well some people are making arguments incessantly despite being completely ignorant of the facts of the case sans what has been tweeted and shared for those "woke" in the ways of the almighty single payer healthcare system.
Posted on 7/28/17 at 3:08 pm to AwesomeSauce
quote:If true, end thread. There's no argument to the contrary IMO.
Then the hospital who filed to stop treatment appealed the decision in light of new evidence that there was treatment that could be used in July, only to have tests come back showing it was too late
Posted on 7/28/17 at 3:08 pm to LNCHBOX
quote:
So you ignore the doctors that were willing to try to treat him and at least give him a chance?
The American doctor had not reviewed the entire patient file and had declined to meet the patient. When he finally did, he agreed there was nothing that could be done.
quote:No worse. I don't know what you are trying to say.
This makes the whole thing even worse. You're basically saying you think it would be better to do anything possible for a pet but not your kid.
Posted on 7/28/17 at 3:08 pm to Speedy G
quote:
I don't think parents are necessarily able to do that b/c their own interests are intertwined.
Do you think that Charlie Gard's parents don't have Charlie's best interests in heart? Do you think they somehow want to see Charlie suffer more than the doctors do?
Posted on 7/28/17 at 3:08 pm to AlbertMeansWell
His condition was not compatible with life, mitochondrial defect.
Posted on 7/28/17 at 3:09 pm to shel311
quote:
If true, end thread
LINK
quote:
The London hospital caring for 11-month-old Charlie Gard has requested a new hearing to consider "fresh evidence" about a possible treatment for his rare condition. The hospital said in a statement Friday that it "applied to the (UK's) High Court for a fresh hearing in the case of Charlie Gard in light of claims of new evidence relating to potential treatment for his condition." On June 30, the European Court of Human Rights decided that Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children can discontinue life support to the baby.
Posted on 7/28/17 at 3:10 pm to Speedy G
quote:
The American doctor had not reviewed the entire patient file and had declined to meet the patient. When he finally did, he agreed there was nothing that could be done.
And I'm sure the delays due to the stupid UK system had nothing to do with any of that. Regardless, explain to me again (which would be the first time someone actually gave a good answer) why this family should not able to do what they feel is in their best interest when using private funds.
quote:
No worse. I don't know what you are trying to say.
You're the guy that brought up the comparison between pets and kids.
Posted on 7/28/17 at 3:12 pm to AwesomeSauce
quote:That's just gross.
The London hospital caring for 11-month-old Charlie Gard has requested a new hearing to consider "fresh evidence" about a possible treatment for his rare condition. The hospital said in a statement Friday that it "applied to the (UK's) High Court for a fresh hearing in the case of Charlie Gard in light of claims of new evidence relating to potential treatment for his condition." On June 30, the European Court of Human Rights decided that Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children can discontinue life support to the baby.
Heartbreaking
Posted on 7/28/17 at 3:16 pm to shel311
quote:
That's just gross.
Heartbreaking
Yet there are arsehats in this thread defending it. They are grasping at straws completely ignorant to the facts of the case because it's a shot to their utopian single payer system. The system that will save lives and do so much good killed a child a month before his first trip around the sun. The government should not have a say in your life or quality of life. Whether that is cannabis oil or running the healthcare system. NONE!
Posted on 7/28/17 at 3:17 pm to LNCHBOX
quote:
why this family should not able to do what they feel is in their best interest when using private funds.
Because the question is what is in HIS best interest, not THEIRS.
quote:
You're the guy that brought up the comparison between pets and kids.
Posted on 7/28/17 at 3:18 pm to Speedy G
quote:
Because the question is what is in HIS best interest, not THEIRS.
I'd say a shot at life is (ETA: was, good job stupid UK system) in his best interest.
quote:
Sweet non answer.
This post was edited on 7/28/17 at 3:19 pm
Posted on 7/28/17 at 3:19 pm to Speedy G
quote:
Because the question is what is in HIS best interest, not THEIRS.
Same can be said about the government running healthcare. They care what is in their best interest not the patients.
Posted on 7/28/17 at 3:26 pm to Speedy G
quote:Well, knowing what we know now, it absolutely was in his best interest to get the treatment, the UK hospital conceded as much basically.
Because the question is what is in HIS best interest, not THEIRS.
Posted on 7/28/17 at 3:28 pm to LNCHBOX
quote:
I'd say a shot at life is in his best interest.
There was no shot. He was a malfunctioning brain trapped in a nonfunctioning body.
quote:
Sweet non answer.
Try asking a question.
Posted on 7/28/17 at 3:29 pm to Speedy G
quote:
There was no shot.
With their decided plan, you're right.
quote:
Try asking a question.
Try just responding to the posts with something other than an emoticon. Or don't, I don't really give a shite.
Posted on 7/28/17 at 3:30 pm to Speedy G
quote:
There was no shot. He was a malfunctioning brain trapped in a nonfunctioning body.
Over 5 months after the hospital took their stance yes he was. That same hospital two weeks before that had occurred stated their initial decision 5 months prior was wrong.
Posted on 7/28/17 at 3:32 pm to AwesomeSauce
It's like talking to a damn tree stump. I'm giving these guys the out by presenting them with the actual facts of the case yet they ignore it and dig in deeper. FFS man, you're wrong. Your stance is wrong.
Posted on 7/28/17 at 3:35 pm to AwesomeSauce
quote:
That same hospital two weeks before that had occurred stated their initial decision 5 months prior was wrong.
No they didn't. They agreed to a rehearing (they were the only party who could file). They never changed their position.
quote:LINK
Great Ormond Street, however, made it clear that its doctors’ views have not changed. The statement says that they considered nucleoside therapy but believed it could cause him more suffering. “Charlie’s condition is exceptionally rare, with catastrophic and irreversible brain damage,” said the statement. “Our doctors have explored every medical treatment, including experimental nucleoside therapies. Independent medical experts agreed with our clinical team that this treatment would be unjustified. Not only that, but they said it would be futile and would prolong Charlie’s suffering. This is not an issue about money or resources, but absolutely about what is right for Charlie. Our view has not changed.” The hospital’s only concern is the best interests of Charlie Gard, it says. “We respectfully acknowledge the offers of help from the White House, the Vatican and our colleagues in Italy, the United States and beyond. “We would like to reassure everyone that Great Ormond Hospital will continue to care for Charlie and his family with the utmost respect and dignity through this very difficult time.”
Page 5 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News