Noting, correctly, that the UK government didn't allow the kid to travel to receive experimental treatment does put the spotlight on what government healthcare can bring. I understand that it may be uncomfortable and lead to personal attacks as a way to shift attention.
I also realize that nothing like that could happen to anybody here, because we all go to all the right parties. In this regard, I note that Charlie Gard's parents were working class, and there was, about that case, a thick sneer of condescension that these people refused to listen to their social betters' directions. Who were they?
Cretins notwithstanding, the issue in that kid's case seemed different from what we're used to seeing in the US, where it's usually some flake of a parent refusing to allow care. And people leave to seek experimental treatment all the time.
I can't think of a case where a doctor sought an injunction to stop parents from taking a kid out of the US for an experimental treatment (has that happened?), but I can see it happening if there was a chance that the experiment would result in a lower standard of care. In that case the concern was additional suffering for the child for a low probability of success, right?
https://www.cnn.com/2017/07/06/healt...aws/index.html
"English law, explained Fenton-Glynn, does not see parents as having the "right" to make decisions on behalf of their children."
Are you now on a quest to reform the English legal system? How do tourniquets play into this endeavor?
I know we all love to look toward things like the economy, health care, and other such red herrings when it comes to suicide, but I don't think those things at all pertain to the rash of celebrity suicides we've been seeing. I'm fairly certain that Robin Williams, Anthony Bordain, Kate Spade, and all the rest had plenty of money, plenty of capability of paying for health care, yet that didn't make any difference obviously. Funny how being wealth is a common factor.
The celebrities are obviously just indicative of a greater trend we're seeing, and I think many of us are chasing the wrong things in my opinion. Some interesting statistics:
-Males are 4 times as likely as females to off themselves (#maleprivilege).
-Middle age men are the largest age demo to do it, so it isn't just angsty millennials.
-By far, the highest racial factor is white, at a rate of nearly triple the rate of blacks and hispanics (#whiteprivilege).
-Region wise, the mountain states have by far the highest rates (1. Wyoming, 2. Alaska, 3. Montana, 4. New Mexico, 5. Utah). I believe it. High rates of Native American suicides and also tons of unseen depression in our beloved little mountain towns (#livingthedream*), of which I certainly barely made it out in my honest opinion.
-In regard to jobs, doctors have the highest rates, followed by dentists. Huh, any TGR dentists care to speak up about that?
-EXTREME poverty is indeed a positive indicator, but also so is extreme wealth.
Now those are all just some stats, but there's so much more to it than any statistic can tell. I'm starting to think it has more to do with the increasing isolation that people are feeling in our modern society. I think tech was awesome for connecting the world with the 90s/00's version of the web, but lately it seems that people just want to hole up more and more. Less real world social interaction than ever before. Many of us THINK we want that, but I think we're doing serious harm to ourselves in the end. Look how much we're trying to even do away with the humble checker at the store, we've done away with the bank teller in many regards, and more. We're pushing more and more ways to not have to ever interact with other human beings. Too many people are losing their sense of purpose, and without purpose or meaning? Then what is there to live for?
It's all starting to feel a bit too Huxleyan for my tastes.
But they aren't the same.
Look, you come from a place that doesn't have freedom of speech, nor the right to bear arms.
And, doesn't let parents leave to get medical care overseas, even if the UK health system isn't being asked to pay for that treatment.
Relative to how good we have it here, it may be a little much to look at.
But, we are definitely not the same. There have been a few cases where clearly brain dead individuals were removed from life support. Their parents were free to take them and fly to wherever, and in fact in at least one case they did that and the kid survived. That's the case that OG actually linked. Still alive last I saw it reported in New Jersey, where the state recognizes that some parents may not accept profound neurological impairment as marking the end of life. You be the judge of whether they are working class or not, or otherwise not quite on.
Last edited by GhostofSeasonsPast; 06-11-2018 at 05:31 PM.
The CNN article was very informative. Thanks. GSP and PNWB should probably both read through to the discussion of what happens in the US if you can find a hospital willing to provide care. The difference is legal, not medical.
Shitty all the way around, and probably mattered very little compared to the attention it got. Charlie's parents likely suffered more than he did, and very likely would have regardless of the court.
We respect individual rights here in a way that the Brits do not, so to that extent it's a legal distinction.
But, it becomes medical if for instance the parents want to try an experimental procedure that a doctor is willing to try, and as with Charlie Gard they still aren't allowed to leave.
You need to read the article you linked. It's clear you didn't.
Read it. Doctors aren't compelled by the state to render medical care they view as unwarranted.
Parents are free to find other doctors. Real simple, and also there are real people still here who would have died if the first doctors had been listened to.
If the parents are completely cray cray, they won't find other doctors.
Very different from the UK. Glad to help you out.
I have no opinion re the rightness or wrongness of Charlie Gard decision, since I don't know enough about the condition he had or the experimental treatment that was being offered. What the McMath and Gard cases have in common is that courts made decisions re the care of a minor child when medical and parental opinion differed. In the McMath case a court ruled in 2013 that she was dead--the current ruling appears to relate to the malpractice lawsuit. Neither case is particularly unique to one health care system or another. Neither has anything to do with what I have been trying to talk about, which is whether single payer or universal coverage will result in the govt telling doctors what treatments to provide in everyday medical practice. (The tech companies otoh are hot to develop software which will do just that.) The system can make a difference here--the UK will not dialyze people as old and sick as some we do--80+ year olds with severe dementia for example. But if Americans are willing to pay for that we can have it--it's just that we refuse to accept that ultimately the money comes out of each of our pockets.
What is important to me about these cases is the idea that parents do not always know what is best for their child, that children are not the property of their parents, and that the state has the right to intervene to protect the interests of the child. I have gone to court to give transfusions to the child of Jehovah's witnesses; I have also watched an adult Jehovah's Witness bleed to death while I honored his wishes not to receive blood. In many though not all of these cases better communication and more caring can go a long way towards easing the situation and allowing a consensus decision to be made. In the McMath case the situation is complicated by the fact that letting a child suffocate on her own blood after a tonsillectomy seems to have put the hospital on the defensive and made empathic communication difficult.
Sorry for going on, Flowing, but it just isn't fair for me to deny everyone else my brilliance.
og, if start denying us your brilliance, I’ll stop reading this thread
Some people may not trust the gov’t with health care decisions, but I most certainly do not trust corporations.
Again, a fundamental difference is that, here, that's interpreted to mean keeping the child alive.
And the UK, in the Charlie Gard case, the determination was the reverse. Here we do that with our pets when the old and weathered Golden doesn't want his breakfast any more...or isn't fun any more. Big difference between a pet and a one year old. And since the state has an interest in not spending money, it has a bit of a conflict in assessing best interests.
Regarding single payer, we already have warning signs within hospital systems with things like formularies. We know those formularies already ensure a good number of deaths each year, and that's without single payer.
Maybe knee surgeries would stay innovative with progressively better outcomes? But I doubt it.
For obesity, the same government that produces incredibly cheap sugar and encourages us to eat bread is going to solve obesity through health care? Wise to be cautious.
As for suicide, since our rate isn't worse than many single payer systems, it's unclear how state involvement should help, there.
I should add that the doctors aren't always right in these kids' cases, although I'm sure that's obvious. "The Spirit Catches You and You Fall Down" is a book about a Hmong child with severe seizures who wound up in a persistent vegetative state and about her parents difficult interactions with her well-meaning doctors--in the end it seemed that the parents were right about her care and the doctors were wrong, or at least the parents were more right. In the end everyone--the doctors, the lawyers, the judges, the nurses, the social workers, and the parents need humility in these difficult situations.
(The only rocker I know of who went 6 rounds with Roberto Duran)
Well, actually, maybe, just maybe the "government", aka the people, would then have what they need to step up and prevent some very powerful lobbies from pushing the White Death and bread. Lobbies, and our corresponding fucked up campaign finance laws, are a huge part of our problem.
What blows my mind is all these celebrities' suicides with millions in the bank.
Me, I have a big life insurance policy through work, and when I'm down the thought has come to mind to solve all my family financial worries.
But I don't think that I could.
Bookmarks