Non-Americans with universal healthcare. Do you prefer your system or privatized like the U.S. Why?

[Yerda]

I thought it was a reference to Alfie Evans

I see. My bad.

It is part of government... A branch of.... Without being part of government the judiciary has no power.... Do you even know anything about the subject you are babbling about?

Maybe shmogie meant to include the courts but I kind of doubt he was suggesting the rule of law is an impediment to liberty.

 

[Shad]

I see. My bad.

I could see the confusion as the reference was really based on a government order rather than a name. We could both be wrong about the person in question.

Maybe shmogie meant to include the courts but I kind of doubt he was suggesting the rule of law is an impediment to liberty.

I think the point was parents wanted to continue treatment using options outside the UK system. The UK NHS backed by a judge's order prevented that.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I think the point was parents wanted to continue treatment using options outside the UK system. The UK NHS backed by a judge's order prevented that.

It was a complicated case, with the primary argument put forward by Alfie's doctors being that continuing to attempt treatment on Alfie was not actually in his best interests and would just result in prolonging Alfie's suffering. From their perspective, it wasn't so much a decision for the state to allow the child to die, and more the judiciary system stepping in to prevent an action which would result in harming a child unnecessarily. It seems the judge found their argument more compelling than the argument that further treatment would help Alfie obtain any kind of quality of life.

 

[Shad]

It was a complicated case, with the primary argument put forward by Alfie's doctors being that continuing to attempt treatment on Alfie was not actually in his best interests and would just result in prolonging Alfie's suffering. From their perspective, it wasn't so much a decision for the state to allow the child to die, and more the judiciary system stepping in to prevent an action which would result in harming a child unnecessarily. It seems the judge found their argument more compelling than the argument that further treatment would help Alfie obtain any kind of quality of life.

Ergo the government did exactly what claimed. Prevented treatment with a court order

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Ergo the government did exactly what claimed. Prevented treatment with a court order

Again, things were more complicated than that. It was determined by both doctors and judges that continuing treatment was not in the best interests of the child and would only prolong their suffering. Would you be against a judicial system stepping in to prevent harm coming to a child?

 

[oldbadger]

Many in the U.S. argue against universal healthcare and how terrible it is, yet I never heard anyone from outside the states voice their disdain for it nor how they held an envious desire for U.S. style healthcare. Someone claimed that this was because you're too oppressed to know better. So what's the case?

Our National Health Service (UK) has been running for 70 years now.
Any health service can make mistakes, or attract criticisms, but the NHS has always provided me and mine with fast high quality healthcare for the price of our National Insurance deductions from our wages, so trivial in amount that I couldn't even tell you how much I paid each month.

In 2014 my wife nearly died in a Sepsis attack, but a brilliant team of responders reacted quickly enough to save her, and a very bright medical student identified (during this time) that she was also a 5/1million case of an adrenal gland tumour (Pheo-chromo cytoma), many such cases never being discovered until after death. So they saved her from sepsis and then raced her to the Pheo team at Kings College Hospital London, where they saved her all over again.

This treatment would have exceeded the value of our home........ a lot more.

On the other hand, in 1976 I lost a son due to poor medical research, but many French deaths were caused as well as in the UK, and such deaths may also have occurred in other countries. Maybe in the USA? On the whole our NHS is one of our most valuable services.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Me too. I first learned of it when I was up in Toronto.

It seems some employers however do provide dental coverage but those that do not have it will either have to pony up the money, or just settle for pain relievers.

We can also purchase private insurance (that's in Ontario, at least).

 

[SkepticThinker]

Yeah, but still.

...I remember a little something not too long ago where doctors in the UK were going to pull the plug on a baby against the parents wishes.

Everything comes down to what the State says... so I Don't think there's any freedom.

Terri Schiavo case - Wikipedia

 

[Altfish]

...I remember a little something not too long ago where doctors in the UK were going to pull the plug on a baby against the parents wishes.

Everything comes down to what the State says... so I Don't think there's any freedom.

So how long should you keep someone alive that the best doctors say has no hope?

btw, the baby was Alfie Evans

 

[Cooky]

So how long should you keep someone alive that the best doctors say has no hope?

btw, the baby was Alfie Evans

Well, we know that in the UK, the State decides, and not the family of the person.

IMO, doctors are hired hands, to do what people pay them to do. The state, likewise, should be to assist people, not make decisions for them. Really, the State should stay out if it and mind their own business.

 

[Altfish]

Well, we know that in the UK, the State decides, and not the family of the person.

IMO, doctors are hired hands, to do what people pay them to do. The state, likewise, should be to assist people, not make decisions for them.

No it doesn't. The state/parliament/etc was NOT involved in the decision. Doctors made the decision and doctors are not hired hands.
The state had assisted the family and got so far with no sign of improvement or quality of life.

So, answer my question...how long should you keep someone alive that the best doctors say has no hope?

 

[Shad]

Again, things were more complicated than that. It was determined by both doctors and judges that continuing treatment was not in the best interests of the child and would only prolong their suffering. Would you be against a judicial system stepping in to prevent harm coming to a child?

Still required a court order to prevent the parents from leaving.

The judge didn't step in to prevent harm as there were other doctors not part of the NHS that offered treatment. Ergo harm was subjective and the only opinion the judge heard from was NHS.

 

[Shad]

So, answer my question...how long should you keep someone alive that the best doctors say has no hope?

Except doctors in Italy were offering some hope which the NHS and the court denied. So much for a second opinion right?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Still required a court order to prevent the parents from leaving.

It's still more complicated than you're making it out to be.

The judge didn't step in to prevent harm as there were other doctors not part of the NHS that offered treatment. Ergo harm was subjective and the only opinion the judge heard from was NHS.

No, the judge listened to both sides and found the arguments and evidence presented by the healthcare professionals in charge of Alfie's care to make the superior case. Surely you aren't going to argue that the specialists that looked after Alfie weren't deliberately trying to end his life without good reason?

Again, please stop trying to over-simplify this situation. It does nobody any favours.

 

[Altfish]

Except doctors in Italy were offering some hope which the NHS and the court denied. So much for a second opinion right?

Without seeing the child they offered hope....
But the judge ruled that, ".."the consensus of every doctor from every country who had ever evaluated Alfie's condition, to the inevitable conclusion (following 7 days of evidence) that Alfie's brain had been so corroded by his Neurodegenerative Brain Disorder that there was simply no prospect of recovery. By the time I requested the updated MRI scan in February, the signal intensity was so bright that it revealed a brain that had been almost entirely wiped out. In simple terms the brain consisted only of water and CSF. [...] All that could be offered by the Bambino Gesu Hospital in Rome was an alternative palliative care plan."

Second opinion...the NHS paid for many more than 2 opinions.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Except doctors in Italy were offering some hope which the NHS and the court denied. So much for a second opinion right?

Except that there was no evidence the treatment would have worked, and the child was already in an unrecoverable, semi-vegetative state. At best, they would have been keeping the baby's organs alive, nothing more.

Again, you are over-simplifying a complex issue to cast people involved in a negative light. You are not a healthcare provider, you were not involved in the legal process, you were not privy to the arguments of either side. Just drop it.

 

[Shad]

Without seeing the child they offered hope....
But the judge ruled that, ".."the consensus of every doctor from every country who had ever evaluated Alfie's condition, to the inevitable conclusion (following 7 days of evidence) that Alfie's brain had been so corroded by his Neurodegenerative Brain Disorder that there was simply no prospect of recovery. By the time I requested the updated MRI scan in February, the signal intensity was so bright that it revealed a brain that had been almost entirely wiped out. In simple terms the brain consisted only of water and CSF. [...] All that could be offered by the Bambino Gesu Hospital in Rome was an alternative palliative care plan."

Second opinion...the NHS paid for many more than 2 opinions.

Except for Vatican doctors that offered assistance. Opinions not beholden to a government NHS. Opinions which were still ignored. All so the NHS could force parents to end the life of their child by government edict.

Toss in you just refuted the "suffering" claims as nonsense.

Authoritarianism leftist are hilarious.

 

[Altfish]

Except for Vatican doctors that offered assistance. Opinions not beholden to a government NHS. Opinions which were still ignored. All so the NHS could force parents to end the life of their child by government edict.

Toss in you just refuted the "suffering" claims as nonsense

err, I don't think so..."
The case was commented on by the Pope via Twitter, who stated his "sincere hope that everything necessary may be done in order to continue compassionately accompanying little Alfie Evans, and that the deep suffering of his parents may be heard." He restated his support after the removal of life support, saying "Moved by the prayers and immense solidarity shown little Alfie Evans, I renew my appeal that the suffering of his parents may be heard and that their desire to seek new forms of treatment may be granted."
No reference from the Pope to treatment by the Vatican doctors...unless he didn't know about it.
BUT I reiterate what I said before, there were offers from people who HAD NOT EXAMINED the poor kid but all who had examined him concluded that treatment was not viable.

 

[Shad]

err, I don't think so..."
The case was commented on by the Pope via Twitter, who stated his "sincere hope that everything necessary may be done in order to continue compassionately accompanying little Alfie Evans, and that the deep suffering of his parents may be heard." He restated his support after the removal of life support, saying "Moved by the prayers and immense solidarity shown little Alfie Evans, I renew my appeal that the suffering of his parents may be heard and that their desire to seek new forms of treatment may be granted."
No reference from the Pope to treatment by the Vatican doctors...unless he didn't know about it.

He knew as he offered it and talked to the parents

https://www.lifenews.com/2018/04/23...im-to-italy-to-pursue-new-forms-of-treatment/

BUT I reiterate what I said before, there were offers from people who HAD NOT EXAMINED the poor kid but all who had examined him concluded that treatment was not viable.

They had his medical records. There was no chance to examine as NHS denied the chance.

Face it. You support a system which can use government edicts to force parents to end treatment and the life of their child. And you are happy with it. Hilarious,

 

[Altfish]

He knew as he offered it and talked to the parents

https://www.lifenews.com/2018/04/23...im-to-italy-to-pursue-new-forms-of-treatment/

They had his medical records. There was no chance to examine as NHS denied the chance.

Face it. You support a system which can use government edicts to force parents to end treatment and the life of their child. And you are happy with it. Hilarious,

No, I support a marvelous system that despite limited resources tried to keep the child alive but after taking advice from many doctors decided enough is enough.