-
Montegriffo
- Posts: 18718
- Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 7:14 am
Post
by Montegriffo » Thu Aug 10, 2017 10:54 am
Speaker to Animals wrote:Montegriffo wrote:Yeah, go on mock the NHS
Suck it bitches.
Cost to unemployed - zero
We at least have not reached the point where our doctors use state violence to force a baby to die instead of get life-saving treatment available elsewhere. So we have that going for us..
Still refusing to learn the facts of the Charlie Gard case I see.
Not life saving treatment.
Possible prolonging of vegetative state for a few months.
Never let the facts get in the way of your crooked narrative.....
For legal reasons, we are not threatening to destroy U.S. government property with our glorious medieval siege engine. But if we wanted to, we could. But we won’t. But we could.
-
apeman
- Posts: 1566
- Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 9:33 am
Post
by apeman » Thu Aug 10, 2017 10:54 am
I plan to get black-out drunk and pass out on my deck, looking up.
I expect complete darkness
-
Speaker to Animals
- Posts: 38685
- Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 5:59 pm
Post
by Speaker to Animals » Thu Aug 10, 2017 10:56 am
The doctors would not have offered the treatment to him if that were the case and, in point of fact, they withdrew the offer once your government kept the infant locked in the hospital so they parents couldn't rescue him for so long the treatment no longer had a reasonable chance of success.
They killed that boy because they didn't want their health care system to be shown for what it is.
-
Montegriffo
- Posts: 18718
- Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 7:14 am
Post
by Montegriffo » Thu Aug 10, 2017 11:02 am
Speaker to Animals wrote:The doctors would not have offered the treatment to him if that were the case and, in point of fact, they withdrew the offer once your government kept the infant locked in the hospital so they parents couldn't rescue him for so long the treatment no longer had a reasonable chance of success.
They killed that boy because they didn't want their health care system to be shown for what it is.
Go read up on it, you are completely misinformed as usual.
The clinic offered the treatment because they wanted £1.2 million and a baby to experiment on.
Even the clinic itself never said the treatment would save his life or even improve his condition.
As for the healthcare system it is less than half the cost of yours and results in a higher life expectancy.
For legal reasons, we are not threatening to destroy U.S. government property with our glorious medieval siege engine. But if we wanted to, we could. But we won’t. But we could.
-
apeman
- Posts: 1566
- Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 9:33 am
Post
by apeman » Thu Aug 10, 2017 11:04 am
Montegriffo wrote:
Go read up on it, you are completely misinformed as usual.
The clinic offered the treatment because they wanted £1.2 million and a baby to experiment on.
Even the clinic itself never said the treatment would save his life or even improve his condition.
As for the healthcare system it is less than half the cost of yours and results in a higher life expectancy.
Assuming everything you say is true, you don't think it's messed up that the govt decides, not the parents? (I don't know the specifics of the case mind you, I am just adopting your facts)
My dad went through experimental bone marrow cancer treatment, no guarantee it would save his life or improve his condition, it was insanely expensive (though insurance covered it), should he have had the option?
-
apeman
- Posts: 1566
- Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 9:33 am
Post
by apeman » Thu Aug 10, 2017 11:05 am
I would add: when experimental treatment fails, I am of the impression that it adds to the body of knowledge, improving outcomes for those in the future, no?
-
apeman
- Posts: 1566
- Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 9:33 am
Post
by apeman » Thu Aug 10, 2017 11:12 am
I could see that Monty was here on the forum for a bit reading my question due to the notification at the bottom of the screen, and now he is gone.
I often think Monty has a coherent point of view even when I disagree, I do not think he views me as a crazy right winger either, so I was wondering how he would respond.
-
Speaker to Animals
- Posts: 38685
- Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 5:59 pm
Post
by Speaker to Animals » Thu Aug 10, 2017 11:12 am
He's desperate to defend this piece of shit, but it's clearly indefensible. They killed that baby because they didn't want him to go to America to be successfully treated where they failed.
-
apeman
- Posts: 1566
- Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 9:33 am
Post
by apeman » Thu Aug 10, 2017 11:14 am
Speaker to Animals wrote:He's desperate to defend this piece of shit, but it's clearly indefensible. They killed that baby because they didn't want him to go to America to be successfully treated where they failed.
Was the baby's experimental treatment gonna be privately funded?
Because in that event, I'd say the baby had ten times the right for the treatment than my dear father.
-
Speaker to Animals
- Posts: 38685
- Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 5:59 pm
Post
by Speaker to Animals » Thu Aug 10, 2017 11:17 am
apeman wrote:Speaker to Animals wrote:He's desperate to defend this piece of shit, but it's clearly indefensible. They killed that baby because they didn't want him to go to America to be successfully treated where they failed.
Was the baby's experimental treatment gonna be privately funded?
Because in that event, I'd say the baby had ten times the right for the treatment than my dear father.
Yes. They had already raised the funds.
The government needed that baby to die because letting him leave with the parents to be potentially saved by the American health care system would have been a political disaster. This was murder in my opinion.