Meanwhile, in the UK...

I mean they could spend millions to slightly improve the life of a baby who can't breathe on his own, has mental dammage. and who'se fellow sufferers barely live past 20
or eh... they can't guarantee that money would be used on the NHS instead!

Oh I agree but if this was true the US surely would implement a better healthcare system.

anyways for the purpose of study I say fine let the baby go get experimented on. that's the problem with rare diseases not enough cases, not enough interest, not enough money. but there are quacks out there who will take advantage of these cases. and there are systemic issues in the healthcare world where much more good could be done for much more people by a different expenditure of funds.

 

This link has more detailed information than the first one, and is an update: https://www.liveaction.org/news/hospital-new-court-hearing-fresh-evidence-charlie-gard/

 

So I'm assuming it's National Health Service? In that case, I'm honestly confused as to what you mean or are worried about? I can take some guesses, but I doubt that'd help.

Nationalized health care is just government controlled medical insurance industry. It doesn't (usually) have anything to do with development of treatment. So I don't think it really applies.

 

typical answer. you lack imagination or ambition.

you need to be more interested in the politics of neighbouring countries and allies.
this is the problem when I talk to people who either cannot associate things the same way my mind does or lack the knowledge pool.

1 the baby is in the UK
the UK has a national health service that could use more money
2 the brexiteers claimed sending 350 million to the EU every X amount of time was a waste of money ( it isn't)
the treatment is likely a waste of money.
3 they wrote on a bus that they should use this money to fund the NHS (they lied)
the hope that this kid's situation can improve is also likely false.

see, there are multiple similarities and themes. but to answer your original question; at worst you could be looking at spending millions for no benefit where the same could be used for great benefit for many.
but as I stated you have convinced me of the benefit of human experimental case study. lets go experiment on babies.

EDIT: I have been informed "experimenting on babies" is not a nice way to phrase the course of action intended by you.

 

Why spend money keeping a baby alive when you could use it to build an abortion clinic. Right?

 

I think the courts have been right the whole way through. Of course, I do understand that any parent would go to any lengths to save their child. But, when the quality of life is as such, there is permanent brain damage and it would be costly to treat Charlie, can't blame the courts for their decision.

 

Ragic gets it!

the most recent one giving the parents 48 hours to come up with evidence that the treatment will be effective?

also

I'm gonna have to trust the judgement of the doctors more than the father about this 11 month baby here.

and remember these doctors are forced to keep the baby alive right now

basically the parents claim they could improve the following situation by 10 %

to be fair it is getting confusing

I used this as a source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...nts-stressed-hopeful-ahead-new-court-hearing/

it has loads of pictures of the parents crying because drama sells I guess.

so so far every court has said, stop the suffering!
and Trump, the pope some american evangelicals a few italian and american doctors and the parents say, no we can give the suffering baby like... 10% better life! (so 0 times 110... ah Firk)

 

Ah but you see, that woman gave women control over their own bodies and old and sick people the freedom to die with dignity.

she was well liked for this by a lot of people.
but apparently people who like the bible, and understand it differently than you? think these are bad things classified as murder and that justifies murdering.

 

If you ask me, these parents are being pretty damn selfish. From what I've read about the condition and this case, I'm not sure what's smaller: the chances of medical treatment actually helping him, or the amount of improvement he'll show even with said treatment.

At this point, I'm pretty sure they've been turned down by every respected doctor in and out of the country. What more do they want? Medicine isn't magic. Sometimes you just have to accept that your child is going to die, instead of trying to draw out the pain and suffering just because YOU want things to be different.

If that was my son, I wouldn't regret letting him die; not one bit. Because I'd rather have him dead and at peace than alive and suffering for the rest of his miserably short life.

 

Ultimately it's about how much people should be free to profit from the desperation of others.

Whether the US doctors are actually selling snake oil, or they are selling a real but very small chance of solving the problem, is one issue -- if it is truely snake oil then there should be some kind of way to determine that, ad I hope the BMC (or whoever the authority is) is making that decision.

The trouble comes when there is an actual chance to improve the condition, but it is so small and so expensive, that nobody but the most desperate parents who would give anything would fund it. There is no obvious answer to this.

 

Well I could understand them ignoring the Pope's wishes and not letting the boy come to America for treatment.... but to also ignore Trump's wishes? UK won't do it.

 

It's interesting how this is news in the US but only barely covered in the UK.

I think it's because it isn't a politicised debate here, and depressingly that means it's not news worthy. I say depressingly not because I find the subject especially interesting, but that it seems like we are only interested in things we can be tribal about and engage in some kind of conflict over.

In the U.K. a discussion about it between two people of opposite sides of the political spectrum would be something like acknowledging it is a difficult situation, and that both results are bad and maybe favouring different outcomes or perhaps not, but both would have to actually think about it. No one is interested in that.

In the US people love to hear about it simply because they already know what they 'think' from the start because it is something already covered by their 'liberal' or 'conservative' training, so they can concentrate on having their beliefs confirmed and telling others why they are wrong.

 

worst comparison ever, republitards love their slippery slope.

if quality of life matters in a horribly complex situation, why cant i just order to kill your???
why should gays be allowed to marry, if they do what is to stop dogs marrying???

because logic

 

Quality of life is subjective is the point. and no, trains suck no matter where you are.

 

theres subjective and theres clearly defined lines

arguing that parents + dying kid and me healthy + random jackass on the internet is even close is ridiculous. As is the gay dog argument.

 

don't bullshit, it is quantified and applied by humans all the time, just not often to other humans.
I propose your unwillingness to discuss it in regards to humans stems from your inherent predjudices, preconceptions and bias.

we understand Ragic, you are only human, as am I and everyone here. It is normal to have a pro-human bias. I bet you like other fuzzy mammals better than insects too? everyone always gives to the organisations that want to save some fuzzy animals but how many organisations have you seen for springtails? it is important that people understand that they have this bias prior to making judgements abut these matters.

what is your opinion on euthanisation of dogs or cats by veterinarians? what about palative care? many that die of terminal diseases could have lived for months longer if we jamed them full of tubing an hooked them up to machines.

is it because you are afraid of your own mortality that you do not want to confront these things in a civil manner to explain your stance to us? you can just say you are uncomfortable thinking about death and suffering instead of being so coarse.

 

i guess we should pull the plug on Steven Hawking then.

 

why would you take away his mobility and ability to talk?

Stephen hawking has a decent quality of life still and most importantly has the ability to communicate as such. I imagine he has outlined his wishes in case his condition were to deteriorate past a certain point. I know he was on the Royal Delfin in Tenerife around 2 years ago watching whales from the back deck.

so yes if he were to suffer and the humane thing would be to let him go then why not? just because he has been a hugely influential theoretical physicist does not mean we have any right to force him to suffer as long as we want him to.

You are being flippant is it because you have got no arguments? have you even tried applying the 5 freedoms? or looked at them to come up with something you find better used to determine the welfare and quality of life of a human person?

 

you just said a quadriplegic has a decent quality of life.

yawn. this is getting boring its so easy.