Europe, Boring Until it's Not

[Speaker to Animals]

Pure evil.

[nmoore63]

If you are not going to provide treatment then why can't we not provide treatment at home?

Because the State Wills it.

The purveyors of the State's Truth, deep down in their heart of hearts, know they are fallible.

That is why they must make these pronouncements from behind the anonymous curtain of Oz.

[Montegriffo]

If you are not going to provide treatment then why can't we not provide treatment at home?

Because the State Wills it.

Ignoring that horrible double negative...

Because it is in the childs best interest...

[Speaker to Animals]

If you are not going to provide treatment then why can't we not provide treatment at home?

Because the State Wills it.

Ignoring that horrible double negative...

Because it is in the childs best interest...

It's obviously not in the child's best interest to be starved to death so that the failures of your socialized medicine system are not so obvious that Britons begin jumping ship.

This boy is breathing on his own just fine. So the alleged doctors decided to speed things along by refusing to allow him to be fed.

We are talking about murder now, Monty. Your government is murdering a baby to hide the failures of the NHS.

[Kath]

The doctors who have been treating the child know best. .

It's simply stunning that you believe the state should have the right to prevent the parents from seeking other treatment. They are literally holding the child prisoner. Are they afraid the experimental treatment may work? They are worried they might be proven wrong?

Who, exactly, is being helped here? Certainly not the child, nor the parents. The only winner here is the state. You should not be okay with that.

[nmoore63]

If you are not going to provide treatment then why can't we not provide treatment at home?

Because the State Wills it.

Ignoring that horrible double negative...

Because it is in the childs best interest...

Lead me to Room 101 so that I, too, may see the Light.

Death is Life.

It is in the child’s best interest because the Word of the god-state says it is so.

Purefy me.

[Montegriffo]

The doctors who have been treating the child know best. .

It's simply stunning that you believe the state should have the right to prevent the parents from seeking other treatment. They are literally holding the child prisoner. Are they afraid the experimental treatment may work? They are worried they might be proven wrong?

No they are afraid it won't work and will needlessly subject the child to suffering.

[Speaker to Animals]

The doctors who have been treating the child know best. .

It's simply stunning that you believe the state should have the right to prevent the parents from seeking other treatment. They are literally holding the child prisoner. Are they afraid the experimental treatment may work? They are worried they might be proven wrong?

No they are afraid it won't work and will needlessly subject the child to suffering.

They are starving him to death because he won't die on his own. Process that.

[BjornP]

But... if there are doctors out there who are willing to try an experimental treatment on an unknown disease, and they believe that they can accomplish that without causing insufferable pain and with at least some degree of possible success... why deny the parents that choice?

Because it is illegal to carry out medical experiments on live patients in the UK.
In the Charlie Gard case there was no recognised treatment for the condition and the private American clinic offering to treat him [at a cost] never even claimed to have one or any experience of sucessfully treating the condition.
This is thought to be a similar condition so it is likely that the Italian hospital cannot provide any treatment other than life support.
In the end the child is kept alive on life support with no chance of any quality of life for financial/religous motives because the poor parent can't accept the horrible truth of it all.

Then your laws should be changed, because that's profoundly idiotic. Medical experiments on live patients at the initial stages, sure, I can understand that... but a definitive ban? Idiotic law.

If the only "hope" the child has, is legitimately only Italians hooking up the infant to permanent life-support, with no chance of the child never waking up, then that is more legitimate, sure. That's not about "The State", anymore than the reason ANY society that outlaws certain behaviors outlaws these things simply for the exclusive consideration of The State.

Still, "thought to be a similar condition", and "likely to be"...? Gonna need more than that before denying parents seeking treatment in other countries, especially if you cannot prove that their alternative treatment will be harmful to the child. If they're going to be abused by foreign medical professionals, that's partially their own responsibility, partially your country's justice ministry's and foreign ministry's in relation to seeking justice against foreign countries' exploitation of your citizens.

[Montegriffo]

Ignoring that horrible double negative...

Because it is in the childs best interest...

It's obviously not in the child's best interest to be starved to death so that the failures of your socialized medicine system are not so obvious that Britons begin jumping ship.

This boy is breathing on his own just fine. So the alleged doctors decided to speed things along by refusing to allow him to be fed.

We are talking about murder now, Monty. Your government is murdering a baby to hide the failures of the NHS.

The NHS has been named the best health system for the second year in a row by an influential think tank in a new analysis of healthcare in 11 countries.

Using data from the World Health Organisation (WHO), the OECD and questionnaires completed by doctors and patients, researchers at the Commonwealth Fund ranked each nation’s healthcare provision through five different quality measures.

At the bottom of the list was the US, where 44 per cent of people on low incomes were found to have difficulty accessing healthcare, compared to just seven per cent in the UK.

This is despite the fact the US “spends far more on healthcare than other high-income countries,” said the report, noting that despite a steady increase in government health over the last three decades, the US population has poorer health than other countries.

Ease of access to healthcare was one of the five areas examined by the think tank, along with equality of access, administrative efficiency, results and the quality of the care process for patients.

After the UK, the countries with the best overall performance scores were Australia, the Netherlands and New Zealand, followed by Norway, Switzerland, Sweden and Germany.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/heal ... 41226.html