Socialized Medicine Death Panels don't exist, eh?

redrumloa

Active Member
Moderator
Joined
Apr 2, 2005
Messages
13,976
Reaction score
2,030
Great Britain proves they do in the most literal way possible.

Judge Says Charlie Gard’s Parents Can’t Take Him to U.S. Even Though He Was Given U.S. Residency

Charlie Gard’s parents appeared in court again Friday to discuss the next step in his case.

In the course of the hearing, British high court Justice Francis said their son cannot be moved to the United States for treatment without a court order, squashing hope that a move to grant him residency in the U.S. would help him, according to The Independent.

Earlier this week, U.S. Congressional leaders approved a measure to grant Charlie and his parents permanent residency status in an effort to make it easier for him to receive an experimental treatment. Pro-life Congresswoman Jaime Herrera Beutler, R-Washington, led the effort; her daughter also was diagnosed with a fatal condition but survived because of an experimental treatment.


If it pleases the Queen, may our child be allowed to live?

Chris Gard and Connie Yates want to take their son to the United States for an experimental treatment. They raised more than $1.5 million for his care. His parents said they know the chance of the experimental treatment working is slim, but they want to try anyway for Charlie’s sake.

However, the courts and hospital have refused to allow them to transfer their son to another hospital. About a month ago, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the hospital can remove Charlie’s life support and allow him to die. The hospital recently agreed to consider new evidence involving Charlie’s condition before taking him off the ventilator.


Death panels exist, in Great Britain and starting to come to the USA. Margaret Sanger & Adolf Hitler's vision of Eugenics have come true.
 

FluffyMcDeath

Active Member
Member
Joined
May 17, 2005
Messages
12,129
Reaction score
2,622
Great Britain proves they do in the most literal way possible.
Death panels have always existed in the US healthcare system. They are just called adjusters. Insurance is about collecting premiums, not paying out on claims.
Death panels exist, in Great Britain and starting to come to the USA. Margaret Sanger & Adolf Hitler's vision of Eugenics have come true.
Adolf Hitler's vision of Eugenics was already true in the 30s. It was all over the "civilised" world and a lot of his ideas came from America in that regard. Of course, back then it was "we're going to kill you because you have bad genes and we don't want you breeding" and now it's "we're going to let you die because we're not going to get any money out if you if we treat you" - with the flip side being "we'll treat you with the most expensive latest greatest stuff we have even if it's hopeless and the effort would be better spent saving someone else because you've still got money left".
 

FluffyMcDeath

Active Member
Member
Joined
May 17, 2005
Messages
12,129
Reaction score
2,622
Great Britain proves they do in the most literal way possible.
Good grief. Just read the story and followed this link to more reportage on the subject.
First of all, he is an infant. He has never had anything, can't move, is blind - has basically nothing to lose. I understand the parents desires to grasp at straws for their child but the child hasn't even had any life and was born unable to have a life. If he'd been born in the 30s he'd already be dead because they wouldn't have been able to keep him alive this long.
When I first saw your story I though at least it was someone like a 12 year old kid who had started out healthy and then run into complications - someone who could comprehend life and death and had some positive experiences of life that made it worth cherishing to them - you know, someone with the potential to resume and go on enjoying living.

And I see there is a pastor involved who is praying for them to get a positive outcome in court and get the chance to try this "experimental" procedure (give the unconscious kid a chance to be a guinea pig without his consent as it were). Why doesn't he just pray that the kids mitochondria start working and he becomes normal? Instead of asking God to play God he's asking God to help someone else play God. Looks quite like if there was a God he's put a recall on this unit and the humans are just to arrogant and stubborn to admit it.
 

redrumloa

Active Member
Moderator
Joined
Apr 2, 2005
Messages
13,976
Reaction score
2,030
Death panels have always existed in the US healthcare system. They are just called adjusters.

It is one thing to deal with an adjuster and get denied benefits. That's bad enough. Now you have to deal with a cold uncaring court system. In this instance they've raised $1.5M for medical care. It should be up to the parents what is best for their child, period. What happened to "my body my choice"? Right, only for women who want to murder their own child.

Adolf Hitler's vision of Eugenics was already true in the 30s. It was all over the "civilised" world and a lot of his ideas came from America in that regard.

I already mentioned this in my first post. Hitler's idea of Eugenics came from the movement Margaret Sanger helped found. Hitler was a big fan of Sanger herself. Margaret Sanger's legacy lives on to this day in Planned Parenthood, which she founded. To this day they push the extermination of undesirables, which is why minority areas have the most abortion mills and the leading cause of deaths among blacks is abortion.
 

FluffyMcDeath

Active Member
Member
Joined
May 17, 2005
Messages
12,129
Reaction score
2,622
It is one thing to deal with an adjuster and get denied benefits. That's bad enough. Now you have to deal with a cold uncaring court system.
But they didn't have to deal with the adjuster first.
In this instance they've raised $1.5M for medical care. It should be up to the parents what is best for their child, period. What happened to "my body my choice"? Right, only for women who want to murder their own child.
It's commendable that they have raised this amount. I understand there emotions on this. As to the point about "my body, my choice", shall we ask the child? See what he says. He's about 11 months old now and has never been conscious. What kind of opinion do you expect him to have?

Now, if you think that $1.5M is going to go far, I'm highly dubious. The kid isn't going to just get up and be normal after treatment. If you check his condition and the experimental treatment they are trying to get him, he and his parents are basically guinea pigs. Whatever gains he makes he will still need continuous care and he will never be off treatment. You are putting a person who is unable to live without treatment into a situation where they will likely never actually be able to look after themselves but if they do manage to gain some independence they will always be dependent on a medication which if they stop taking will rapidly cause them to lose muscle tone and consciousness. Instead of trying again to have a kid who may be healthier and lead a better life, the parents are choosing to dedicate their lives to someone who will need all their resources and who will almost certainly die soon after his parents die and there is no-one left to care for him. The experimental treatment has so far only been tried for people with a related condition, not Charlie's condition. Even the kid they mention who has received the treatment isn't cured. His gains have been painfully small.

"He occasionally makes noises and slightly wiggles his feet. And when his arm is gently lifted up at the elbow, his index finger and thumb faintly move."
 

redrumloa

Active Member
Moderator
Joined
Apr 2, 2005
Messages
13,976
Reaction score
2,030
But they didn't have to deal with the adjuster first.

It's commendable that they have raised this amount. I understand there emotions on this. As to the point about "my body, my choice", shall we ask the child? See what he says. He's about 11 months old now and has never been conscious. What kind of opinion do you expect him to have?

Now, if you think that $1.5M is going to go far, I'm highly dubious. The kid isn't going to just get up and be normal after treatment. If you check his condition and the experimental treatment they are trying to get him, he and his parents are basically guinea pigs. Whatever gains he makes he will still need continuous care and he will never be off treatment. You are putting a person who is unable to live without treatment into a situation where they will likely never actually be able to look after themselves but if they do manage to gain some independence they will always be dependent on a medication which if they stop taking will rapidly cause them to lose muscle tone and consciousness. Instead of trying again to have a kid who may be healthier and lead a better life, the parents are choosing to dedicate their lives to someone who will need all their resources and who will almost certainly die soon after his parents die and there is no-one left to care for him. The experimental treatment has so far only been tried for people with a related condition, not Charlie's condition. Even the kid they mention who has received the treatment isn't cured. His gains have been painfully small.

"He occasionally makes noises and slightly wiggles his feet. And when his arm is gently lifted up at the elbow, his index finger and thumb faintly move."

A take from an actual doctor on July 15th.

 

FluffyMcDeath

Active Member
Member
Joined
May 17, 2005
Messages
12,129
Reaction score
2,622
A take from an actual doctor on July 15th.

I think the doctor is factually wrong on medicaid. He was "forced" onto medicaid by not being able to afford other medical care. If he CAN afford other medical care then he doesn't qualify for Medicaid meaning he is in the bind of funding his own medical care and losing medicaid or staying only with medicaid care and pretending he can't afford other care. It sounds like he wants to eat his cake and have it too.

Now I haven't read any of the legal case material and I doubt that I'd get much from it if I did but there are several issues here. A big one is how should a society ration care. Whatever you would wish the world would be the fact remains that resources are not infinite. We could define a perfect system as one in which everyone who needs care will get it and that care will be 100% effective. No such system exists as far as I know nor is one likely. The question then becomes not "do we ration care" but "HOW do we ration care".

One fair seeming way would be first come first served. Maybe another is sickest first. But if you do one of those methods then maybe someone too sick to live will block care for someone who could recover if cared for immediately or someone with a chronic but survivable condition could block care of someone with an acute, and if untreated, deadly condition.

In a system that is owned by the public, the proper outcome should be that the resources are distributed to give the best outcome for the majority of the public. Choosing who gets care is, in that case, a public matter of general concern and the goal is to share the resources so that the largest number of people and society as a whole benefits.

In a private system the resources are given to those who can afford them and the kinds of diseases and conditions resources are put into are, disproportionately, conditions of the rich. In such a system wealthy people will get face-lifts and tummy tucks and rich old people will soak up resources to gain a few months of extra life (or shorten their lives in the attempt) while the children of the poor will be deprived of those resources and the nation as a whole will lose decades of productive lifespan for the sake of a few extra years added to the life of the investing classes.

How to distribute resources is one set of ethical issues. The life support that Charlie is using to stay hopelessly alive could be used to keep alive someone who has a temporary but acute problem.

Another ethical dilemma is whether a country should allow its citizens to be used for medical experiments and whether parents should be allowed to experiment on their kids. Since Charlie isn't conscious at the moment and isn't old enough to understand what is going on if he were then asking him about it would be pointless. If the therapy has no effect the science has learned something and everything else remains the same.

If it has a miraculous effect then that would be brilliant but highly unlikely (and the family would be beholden to the patent owner of the medication and would have to be willing to pay whatever price was asked or Charlie would die - and a medication made for only a few hundred people planet wide would not be cheap I'd imagine).

If the outcome were slightly beneficial, improved Charlie to the point of consciousness but little more, how would that life be for Charlie, and who, if expensive medical intervention was required for decades of his life now, would be on the hook to cover those costs and who would not receive the benefit of care that those resources could have provided to someone with a far more treatable condition?
 

redrumloa

Active Member
Moderator
Joined
Apr 2, 2005
Messages
13,976
Reaction score
2,030
The horror continues.

British Doctors Group Expresses Horror Over Alfie Evans’ “Medical Tyranny,” Demands Release to New Hospital

“We are deeply concerned and outraged by the treatment and care offered to Alfie Evans,” said the Medical Ethics Alliance (MEA) in an April 24 statement. “Wanting to withdraw treatment so that he will die, the medical authorities have taken Alfie to the High Court. At that point, and as a result of the hospital’s court action, the parents were stripped of their right to be decision-makers for their beloved child. They could only advise the Court and look on as the High Court made decisions for Alfie.”
 

redrumloa

Active Member
Moderator
Joined
Apr 2, 2005
Messages
13,976
Reaction score
2,030
The horror continues.

British Doctors Group Expresses Horror Over Alfie Evans’ “Medical Tyranny,” Demands Release to New Hospital

“We are deeply concerned and outraged by the treatment and care offered to Alfie Evans,” said the Medical Ethics Alliance (MEA) in an April 24 statement. “Wanting to withdraw treatment so that he will die, the medical authorities have taken Alfie to the High Court. At that point, and as a result of the hospital’s court action, the parents were stripped of their right to be decision-makers for their beloved child. They could only advise the Court and look on as the High Court made decisions for Alfie.”

Italian Embassy To British Hospital: Remove The Ventilator From Alfie Evans And We Will Accuse You Of Murder
 

FluffyMcDeath

Active Member
Member
Joined
May 17, 2005
Messages
12,129
Reaction score
2,622
Socialism has nothing to do with this. Similar things have happened in the US. The primary issue here is who gets to decide what is appropriate medical care and what "in the best interests of the patient" mean when a patient can't speak for themselves.

We've seen unplug battles in the US too where health care is "private".

The principle issues that were argued in the Alfie case is - the medical experts opinion was that Alfie's condition was degenerative and terminal and that prolonging his life unnecessarily would cause undue suffering.
That is a legal debate (who is ultimately responsible for the care) and a philosophical debate (better to live as a semi-vegetable for a number of weeks/months/years undergoing possibly invasive, likely unhelpful, likely unpleasant treatment) or to end it now.

The economic debate is separate but effects both the private and public systems though in different ways.

In a fully private system care ends when the money runs out. How long could Alfie's parents pay to keep their child on all the required, probably hopeless treatments? When their money ran out and their sponsors got tired of paying, it would end. If they were insured then at some point the insurer would want to stop the bleeding out of their funds for a hopeless condition. There is only so much healthcare to go round. Resources are not infinite.
Should Alfie get sponsorship on an ongoing basis, whose resources is he using up? If there is one bed and team remaining in the system, should a terminal patient with terrible prognosis be taking up that spot for years or should a few hundred kids with better outcomes be treated (and cured and go on to lead productive lives) instead?

In a public healthcare system the resources still have to be managed but, in theory, the people decide what kind of budget the country has available for healthcare and then the technicians decide how to get the best return on that budget. A good example of public healthcare is the battlefield medical unit. They have a certain amount of resources paid for by the taxpayer and when the wounded come in they have a responsibility to spend those resources on having the largest number of surviving soldiers possible at the end of the mission. If they spend all their resources on the no-hopers then a lot of people who were treatable will die needlessly.

And finally, remember that if it were not for modern medicine God would have called Alfie home weeks ago.
 

cecilia

Active Member
Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2005
Messages
7,592
Reaction score
2,542

what pisses me off is that scum politicians are in the pockets of insurance companies. They care only about money and profit and humans lives be damned.

if you watched a loved one die prematurely because they couldn't afford to see a doctor I would hope you would get the message. But I doubt it. idiots love their money.
 

Robert

Active Member
Moderator
Joined
Apr 1, 2005
Messages
10,264
Reaction score
6,231
A topical example of "non-socialized" medicine in action:
-
Woman recieves $5,751 ER bill—for an ice pack and a bandage
The hospital zeroed out the bill after a reporter asked questions.
GettyImages-183970647-800x536.jpg

A woman seeking treatment from a New Jersey hospital in October 2016 for an ear injury was charged $5,751 for her treatment—even though that treatment only consisted of an ice pack and a bandage.

The woman, Jessica Pell, had fainted and hit her head on a table, slicing her ear in the process. She initially went to the emergency department at Hoboken University Medical Center to patch up the injury. But she decided to leave and get treatment elsewhere after she learned that the doctor who would see her there was out of network for her insurance plan and would therefore cost more than an in-network doctor.

“I decided to decline treatment because I can’t really afford any surprise bills right now,” she said. “The bill I’d probably incur would not be worth saving my ear, which was sad but a choice I had to make.”
 

cecilia

Active Member
Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2005
Messages
7,592
Reaction score
2,542
The bill I’d probably incur would not be worth saving my ear, which was sad but a choice I had to make.”
and millions of Americans have to make that choice every day.

screw the scum in congress.
 

the_leander

Active Member
Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2005
Messages
1,707
Reaction score
447
Socialism has nothing to do with this. Similar things have happened in the US.

Terri Schiavo springs immediately to mind.

Its a terrible situation with no good outcome imho. But I think trying to use this as a means to beat political opponents is, despite being par for the course in these sorts of cases, wholly distasteful.

The kid, just like Terri before him, never stood a chance and whilst I fully take on board that the parents were utterly desperate. I know few parents who wouldn't have tried what they did.

I can even see the argument that they should have been allowed to attempt that experimental treatment, just so that it would ease the conscience of the parents - they would know they literally tried everything.

In the end, as I say, there's no good outcome. Even if that treatment had worked, its entirely likely Alfie's quality of life would have been extremely poor.
 

Robert

Active Member
Moderator
Joined
Apr 1, 2005
Messages
10,264
Reaction score
6,231
Something else we're missing out on so far:
A trip to the ER with your phone may mean injury lawyer ads for weeks
Injured in an accident? Law firms may already know.
6336510146_e76da8e697_z.jpg


With digital traps in hospitals, there’s no need for personal injury lawyers to chase ambulances these days.

Law firms are using geofencing in hospital emergency rooms to target advertisements to patients’ mobile devices as they seek medical care, according to Philadelphia public radio station WHYY. Geofencing can essentially create a digital perimeter around certain locations and target location-aware devices within the borders of those locations. Patients who unwittingly jump that digital fence may see targeted ads for more than a month, and on multiple devices, the outlet notes.

While the reality may seem like a creepy nuisance to some, privacy experts are raising alarms.

"Private medical information should not be exploited in this way," Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey told WHYY. "Especially when it's gathered secretly without a consumer's knowledge—without knowledge or consent."

Last year, Healey’s office barred a digital firm from using geofencing in healthcare settings in the state after the firm was hired by a Christian pregnancy counseling and adoption agency to use digital perimeters to target ads to anyone who entered reproductive health facilities, including Planned Parenthood clinics. The goal was to make sure “abortion-minded women” saw certain ads on their mobile devices as they sat in waiting rooms. The ads had text such as “Pregnancy Help” or “You Have Choices,” which, if clicked, would direct them to information about abortion alternatives.

Healey equated the move to digital harassment and successfully claimed that it violated the state’s consumer protection act.

Still, the use of geofencing in hospitals for marketing is not necessarily illegal overall, and law firms and marketing agencies remain eager to put up their fences. Healthcare-related geo-targeting is occurring across the country, including in Tennessee and California. Bill Kakis, who runs the New York-based marketing firm Tell All Digital, told WHYY it was one of the fastest-growing parts of his business. He was recently hired by personal injury law firms in the Philadelphia area to target patients, for instance.
 
Top