I have been monitoring the ghoulishly "enlightened humanitarians" over in the United Kingdom and their "benevolent" reaction towards Charlie Gard and his parents. It is vile, disgusting, and flat out evil what these folks are insisting must happen with regards to Charlie by effectively sentencing him to death. Perhaps Charlie will likely die regardless, but doesn't his parents have a right to try to provide all possible care for him, and failing that don't they have the right to at least bring him home to die with them?
Once again, Matt Walsh does a brilliant job in capturing my thoughts perfectly on poor Charlie and his tormented parents at the hands of the socialized health care system in Great Britain. It is the inevitable outcome that always occurs when the state is granted the power of life and death over its citizens without there being any recourse for them. We are no longer merely slouching towards Gomorrah in our Western civilized nations. We have evidently already arrived there in England.
"The parents of Charlie Gard are back in court this week, continuing the struggle to free their baby from captivity and bring him to the U.S. for treatment.Continue reading the rest of this excellently stated essay here.
As you hopefully are aware by now, Connie Yates and Chris Gard have been fighting with courts and hospitals in the U.K. for the right to seek medical care for their sick baby. So far, European death panels have determined that Charlie must die, because, in their estimation, his life is no longer worth living. His parents are not allowed to bring him elsewhere for treatment, nor are they even permitted to bring their child home to die in their arms. He is being held as a condemned prisoner in a state funded hospital, with his mother and father permitted only visiting hours to come and weep over the child they are not allowed to save.
But Connie and Chris have been granted one last chance in court to prove the validity of the treatment they hope to obtain for Charlie in the United States. Any sane and decent person would say that it doesn’t matter if some judge or some collection of doctors in London think the treatment will be ineffective. It’s the only chance Charlie has, and his parents have the right to give it a shot. But it doesn’t work that way because the laws in Europe are neither sane nor decent. Charlie had the misfortune of being born into a system of socialized medicine, where government officials get to decide who is worth saving and who must die on the altar of resource efficiency."
UPDATE: Connie Yates and Chris Gard had a court hearing yesterday to see if the judge would allow them to have their baby treated in the United States or other countries that have offered help. They ended up storming out of the court because of the judge.
24 comments:
Spot on Mr. Paine!!
I was not familiar with this story but after doing some reading it is a very bizarre situation to be sure. The child seems to have almost no chance at all but why they do not release the baby to its parents is beyond me.
Maybe it should be treated as a hostage situation. /s
Majormajor, isn't this truly sick?
James, sadly the child's prognosis is not good. That said, if the parents have the means to get treatment in the U.S. then why should it be up to the U.K. government to deny them that right? At the very least, they should not be restricting the parents' access to the child or they should allow the parents to take the child home to pass away amongst family. This is exceptionally cruel and inhumane. It is precisely what many of us were concerned about with the creation of our own "Obamacare" system here. There are indeed death panels attached.
You are also absolutely correct. It is exactly a hostage situation, my friend.
Reminds me of Obama telling a women that instead of a pacemaker, maybe her elderly mother should have just taken a pain killer pill.
Compassion at it's liberal best, the real cost of socialistic medical care.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rin4h4cRs6Y
JTF:
FYI, That video edits out an entire section of Obama's answer to Ms. Sturm. He's speaking of a hypothetical, but the video was editted to omit that context.
Thanks for the link and the reminder of some progressive folk's "compassion", JTF. Obama and many of his fellow travelers don't see a person in that elderly mother. They see someone that is a drain on their system. That individual human life is a monetary threat to the greater good of the many -- to the state. They see limited medical resources that should be applied where it will do the most good in "their estimation". Far better to spend the money on a 30 year old that can still pay taxes and contribute to society rather than someone's 99 year old mother. That would just be a waste of money. These are the de facto death panels that they insisted did not exist in Obamacare.
It is ghoulish how they look at humanity and how people are only valuable based on their potential to helping build a progressive utopia. It is truly frightening how the culture of death and utilitarianism trump life and an individual's humanity for some of these folks.
Unknown, respectfully, it is always easier to deal in hypotheticals for the State instead of realizing the real world humanity of the folks that their "hypothetical" solutions will negatively affect.
T.Paine,
I'm just saying, if you're using a video such as that as the basis of your attitude towards Obama or AHA or any topic, I'm just pointing at that it's been editted to provide a negative connotation. Perhaps a stronger defense of your point would be a video that was not editted, but actually a video that actually demonstrates the context of which you are trying to strengthen your arguement with.
I am using 'you' and 'your' in the general sense. Not specifically meaning you, T.Paine.
Unknown,
why don't you send a link tothe "approved clip"?
Unknown, I appreciate your clarification. I saw a longer edition of the video with Charlie Gibson that put the entire thing into context. Frankly, in my opinion, it did not change the overall tenor or position of President Obama and my reaction to him. Indeed I was staunch in my views against Obamacare and their State-determined distribution of resources, doctors, treatments etc. long before I first ever saw that interview. It should not EVER be up to the state to decide who gets treated and why, in my humble opinion. That is an exceptionally dangerous precedent to set and one that has only resulted in horror and tragedy when implemented elsewhere in the world. Charlie Gard is sadly just the latest reminder of this inhumanity.
Thanks for your contribution to the discussion.
Here is the link to a longer version:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_0o_O1Bbwo&t=132s
JTF:
"Approved clip"? Approved by whom? I'm just saying you're using a source to back your arguement that is dubious. The sharp edit from the transition between the woman's question and the President's answer was a dead give-away that lead me to look for what was missing.
Since this was a exerpt from ABC's Prescription for America, I just went to ABC news to get it straight from the source.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/HealthCare/story?id=7920012&page=1
Unfortunately the video version of the transcript wasnt working in my browser. So thank you, T.Paine for finding an uneditted version of the exerpt. You can clearly see from the transcript and the uneditted version of the clip that Obama didn't tell Ms. Sturm to have her mom take a painkiller instead of getting the pacemaker.
But T.Paine; What exactly in that segment was disagreable? President Obama literally said he didn't want bureaucracies making those decisions.
"What exactly in that segment was disagreable? President Obama literally said he didn't want bureaucracies making those decisions."
The implication of the entire video was that in "hypotheticals" in order to make the outcomes more palatable since we are discussing specific human beings that people for which others actually love and care, that there may indeed be times where someone who has reached an older age or may not exhibit what the State would deem to be a great quality of life, should simply be sacrificed and made comfortable with pain killers etc. so that those resources may be used for other "more deserving" folks.
It is not necessarily the video itself that is so disagreeable to me (although it is) but rather the notion that state bureaucrats would be the ones that would determine who would and wouldn't get medical resources. This should be up to the patients, their doctors, and perhaps their families to consult and make these decisions; not an insurance company or state run bureaucracy.
I know that President Obama has said that he didn't want bureaucracies involved like that, but this is precisely how a single payer state run system would work in the future and in the provisions contained within Obamacare to "distribute" care. President Obama also told me that if I liked my current insurance and current doctor, I could keep them. After the implementation of the "Affordable Care Act", both my insurance dropped my company and my doctor decided to scale back his practice so he could leave medicine as direct results thereof.
Mr. Paine,
Both of my parents lost their Dr. to the ACA. He left medical practice for teaching.
The real cost of liberal health care.
Thank you, T.Paine.
I am certain the hypotheticals were used as a means of broadening that precise instant into something more relatable to the entire group in the audience and viewers at home. But I can see what you mean and why that aspect would be off putting.
I think everyone is in agreement here that healthcare decisions should be between people and their Doctors.
I am sorry you were forced to change Doctors.
JTF, I realize that your and my accounts with Obamacare are anecdotal, but I would be willing to be that millions of folks, particularly in the middle class, were negatively impacted by this monstrosity of Obamacare. Some of our brothers and sisters on the left want to "make it better" so we are even more like the U.K. and there deplorable State-run system. If that happens then we can all say that we are Charlie Gard.
Unknown, I am heartened that we are all in agreement about medical decisions being the purview of the patient and his doctor only. I wish that the rest of our well-meaning government were similarly inclined. Again, I appreciate your input!
Maybe someone can explain how transgenders want us to accept them for who and what they are, yet they do not accept themselves for who and what they are.
MM,
Try asking one?
TB3,
name one and I will.
...No?
"Maybe someone can explain how transgenders want us to accept them..."
I offered a suggestion on how to get that explanation. Kinda a non sequitur to wonder about transgendered people in a comment thread about poor Charlie Gard.
This is an interesting take on our relationship with Russia.
http://halturnerradioshow.com/index.php/opinion-editorial/hal-turner-commentary/906-with-russia-sanctions-bill-congress-has-just-begun-world-war-3-the-missiles-will-fly-within-months
Since the thread has fizzled out I thought you or Chuck might find this article worth reading.
I have to learn how to make a hyper link, it will make posting links easier.
Woody,
so do I, teach me when you learn how
I had already planned to do that.
Mr. Paine,
I find it interesting to watch as the Democratic Party deals with it's pro life members who want to run for office as pro-life. So much for diversity within the DNC.
Majormajor, that is indeed a sad thing, my friend. I know that some of our friends on the left will say that the GOP is not very fond of Republicans that identify as "pro-choice" either. And while that is true, I would add that the Republican platform is typically very protective of unborn life and indeed of life itself. Such is in keeping with our founding document as a nation, where we are guaranteed the rights to "LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". I suppose many of our Democrat friends need to put an asterisk by their copy of the Declaration of Independence stating that the right to life is only guaranteed "after they are born".
Post a Comment