Charlie Gard 10

[user1498911470]

Hi guys new thread.

Let's try to keep this one as sensible and measured as the past 7 threads have been.

Please note the MNHQ comment on thread number 7.

"Hi everyone,

..... We had to remove several parent-blaming posts, so we'd like to ask folk not to do this. We think we can all agree that this is a truly awful time for all involved and we just wouldn't wish it on anyone. If there's anything we could do with more of, it's support. We'll continue to remove reported posts that break TGs (if we've missed something, do feel free to let us know).

If we have to make too many deletions, we will need to look at removing the thread; which is the last thing we wish to do.

Thanks all"

Starting now as 9 will fill up quickly.

"doubled the life expectancy of lung cancer patients"

That's where semantics comes into play, isn't it? I can double your life expectancy from one day to two days. Worth it?!

Yes, I'm Pretty sure some of the posts on .ca facebook are trolls having a laugh.

're the former social worker turned nail technician, if the name she is using is her full name she doesn't appear to be currently registered as a social worker.

Does a troll have to have a reason? Well its probably very funny to a troll to incite people who are maybe not well informed to make statements that are shocking through lack of knowledge about what they are posting about. I bet they get a real kick at winding people up. We see it on here sometimes how emotional people get about things although we are all level headed and sensible so it doesn't get out of hand. Imagine the power trolls feel when they can play with emotions of other people. And if you get a group of them infiltrating a fb page or a thread. Well things soon blow up. Look how shocked we all are at the posts on ca?

Because it's fun, Lovelybath? That would be my guess. A little bit of power for sad people.

Most Americans don't like socialized medicine because they want to have control over their own health care, and not have it just be run and decided by the government, and funded by uncertain taxation, and therefore sometimes rationing. Medicaid covers the poor and people are not left to die, although Trump does appear to plan to cut central funding leaving the states to pay more. Medicare also covers some disabled and retired. I do not like Trump, the funding could sometimes be better, but I consider it ridiculous to say that opposition to socialized medicine is hating the poor. Also, in Oregon and Washington you can choose to die, which is still illegal in the UK. I support people, rather than doctors, making major decisions over their own healthcare, but as Charlie can't, I think his parents should be able to. The NHS also spreads over a billion paying off malpractice claims, mostly for genuine serious medical mistakes that can have devastating consequences, but this is also a major cost to taxpayers. In the US, doctors are also sued regularly and can make mistakes, but are required to have their own insurance to cover claims. US health care is not perfect, but for many conditions, the outcomes are better. I know, however, that many reasonably do not want the US system, but with what is going on in the NHS, moving to a more European system where those who can afford it would have health insurance appears a reasonable thing to at least debate. However, some people appear so fixed in their opinions that any debate at all is not what they want.

Yes, I see. I wasn't sure if they would be for CA or against. Maybe people who like drama and a bit of attention "Oh look how clever am I - of course the guardian is in favour of 'right to die'- that sort if thing. making more drama..and things to be against.

I am so glad not in US. With my health condition people there often have repeat surgeries which makes things worse. One lady I met on FB could have some of the costs met if she got disability- which in US means lawyers etc (makes PIP / ESA look easy to claim). And if she didn't get that, she couldn't get any more treatment. and would have massive bills to pay.

Well it would be worth researching how many on ca were in fact, trolls in disguise. And then when research done drop it in the middle of ca thread naming trolls. My what fireworks then! There would be plenty of people who would feel terrible at what they had posted incited by trolls.

I did see actually the NHS came out top of healthcare recently.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-40608253

I had to go to a community hospital in the US because even though I had insurance because in my naivety I'ld asked the taxi to take us to the nearest A&E.

It was fucking victorian, like fuck are the poor looked after! (the staff were wonderful, the care was fine, but the other people there were in sorry states that people just don't get into before seeking help here where everyon has equal access to the NHS)

You can choose to die here in GB quite easily, just refuse treatment lizzar.

However The UK health service was praised for its safety, affordability and efficiency, but fared less well on outcomes such as preventing early death and cancer survival Not so great then!

@zeezeek

Just another one to thank you for your posts.

It's shed an enormous light not just on the matter at hand, but is genuinely a very interesting subject in its own right imho.

I started to refuse treatment once in hospital, I was very ill and started to refuse, they took the meds away. Bit worrying, I was very low in potassium apparently. Which can make you mentally delirious. Bt yes, they can't give you meds without consent.

US health system driven by money. Lots of rich people in america because of it.

So they have community hospitals and private ones, is that right?

The NHS has saved my life on numerous occasions. I have nothing but praise and are so thankful all my treatment was free.

we wer still top though

and the US bottom

*"doubled the life expectancy of lung cancer patients"

That's where semantics comes into play, isn't it? I can double your life expectancy from one day to two days. Worth it?*

Yes.. That's why many cancer patients decide that enough is enough and that more chemo just to give a short time, which would invariably be spent in pain and discomfort, isn't worth it.

That's what the danger is in this case, and the ethical dilemma, is this treatment going to prolong Charlie's life, but ultimately make him spend it in pain and suffering.

Adults are allowed to make those decisions for themselves. With children we have to rely on emotional, devastated parents making impossible and often complex decisions that they are not in a state to understand or make. That is why when those situations descend into a breakdown in communication and mistrust of the doctors, we need someone - the guardian, to advocate for the child's rights and needs.

Yep me too Sons, saved my life on several occasions and had multiple difficult surgeries, cost in US would be huge.

Right, had a busy day with family and am exhausted, so off I go or rather turn the light out as I'm in bed anyhow, peace to all and prayers and thoughts to baby Charlie and his family and to all of you

Does anyone here think, the guardian may be biased due to affiliations? Or not.

Good night, xx

Blue is also diabetes awareness mucky

Honestly I never expected to see anything like it in the developed world!

People coughing up blood because they couldn't seek help until their respiratory infections/TB became life threatening, undressed gangrenous wounds etc. People were miles down the road from the point where your average poor brit would have saught medical help!

And you can decline treatment and chose a palliative route in the UK so long as you have capacity. For yourself.