Total Solar Eclipse in August

[apeman]

Well I appreciate your explanation Monte, glad to hear your side of it.

You uses phrases like "it is illegal to experiment" which are carefully crafted and suggest you'd make a decent lawyer.

In any case, it is just shitty with no good possible outcome, but you know my biases, I could not tolerate the govt deciding over the parents.

[Montegriffo]

Not so much my side of it rather the hospital's side of it. I don't really have a side of it other than to refute the ''evil NHS'' nonsense which has been put forward.
The true sides to this case were not govt v parents but child v parents. A way to look at it and maybe understand it better would be to consider a case where the parents refused life saving treatment and the courts over ruled their wishes in order to save the childs life. Would the parents be in the right then?
StA's crap about refusing better care to avoid showing up the NHS is just noise. There was never a chance of saving Charlies life only a short prolonging of his vegetive state in order to try out an experimental drug with no chance of an improvement in his condition.

[Speaker to Animals]

If you have an argument to refute it, then by all means, present that argument.

I can see no other way to interpret their motives, and the idea that the government has the right to tell parents they have to let the government kill their baby instead of take the baby to a better health care system is fucking abhorrent. It amazes me how deluded you must be to defend this.

Your government murdered that baby by basically kidnapping him from the parents and taking him off life support when other hospitals offered a potential life-saving treatment. That, morally speaking, is murder, Monty. We can argue about their motives all night, but the LEAST offensive explanation is that they simply didn't want to deal with the public failure of their health care system if this baby was successfully treated in America. That would have been a political disaster for your government, and killing the baby could easily have been an easier option for them. They can take the fallout for that, and they can pretend like they did it all because they cared about the baby (even as they killed him). Yet, if they let him go, which was the only moral choice they had since they had no right to do what they did, they risked having to answer to a lot of domestic criticism as to why the health care system they run is not providing life-saving treatment the much-maligned for-profit system in American ultimately provided to him.

[Ex-California]

The problem is that no one here can see their opponent's position. Pro-NHS people think that the baby was going to be used as a pawn for human-drug experiments while anti-NHS think that the baby was used as a pawn to avoid showing that non-socialized healthcare is indeed better. The truth is somewhere in between and I believe that the doctors were trying to keep the baby's best interests in mind to avoid suffering, even though they should have let him go and attempt the treatment just because that's what the parents wanted to do.

I really think this case is showing one of the fundamental differences between the zeitgeists of our closely culturally related nations. Whereas Americans still believe in the individual overall the British, despite being the European leaders in individual liberty, are polluted with the idea that the state knows best.

When Katie Hopkins was on Rubin she was saying how Americans need to be careful because Britain is a test case of what we can turn into if we're not careful

So how about that eclipse motherfuckers

[Speaker to Animals]

I see his point of view just fine. I simply think he is dead wrong about the motivations of his government.

[clubgop]

The true sides to this case were not govt v parents but child v parents

I bet you think that.

[Montegriffo]

If you have an argument to refute it, then by all means, present that argument.

I can see no other way to interpret their motives, and the idea that the government has the right to tell parents they have to let the government kill their baby instead of take the baby to a better health care system is fucking abhorrent. It amazes me how deluded you must be to defend this.

Your government murdered that baby by basically kidnapping him from the parents and taking him off life support when other hospitals offered a potential life-saving treatment. That, morally speaking, is murder, Monty. We can argue about their motives all night, but the LEAST offensive explanation is that they simply didn't want to deal with the public failure of their health care system if this baby was successfully treated in America. That would have been a political disaster for your government, and killing the baby could easily have been an easier option for them. They can take the fallout for that, and they can pretend like they did it all because they cared about the baby (even as they killed him). Yet, if they let him go, which was the only moral choice they had since they had no right to do what they did, they risked having to answer to a lot of domestic criticism as to why the health care system they run is not providing life-saving treatment the much-maligned for-profit system in American ultimately provided to him.

Ok, find me a reputable source which states the child could be saved. I'll wait.

[PartyOf5]

Yeah, go on mock the NHS
Suck it bitches.

Cost to unemployed - zero

Male life expectancy UK 79.4 years US 76.9

Triggered much? I made no mention or comparison to the U.S. The fact is if you live long enough, your NHS will calculate you are not worth keeping alive. You should be thankful they don't use your MHF posts as part of that calculation.

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/5 ... are-system

In the UK, the NHS has a system based on QALYs — quality-of-life years. In crude terms, it values a year of normal health at £30,000, so if the proposed course of treatment will cost £150,000, the patient would need to have good prospects of having five years of normal life once the treatment is over to get it. For a patient who would need assistance to live because they can’t walk more than a few steps or what have you, the QALY figure might drop to £15,000, so the patient would have to have an expectancy of 10 years of assisted life to get the treatment.

If you don’t like the judgement the doctors come to about the viability of the treatment, you do have the alternative of raising the necessary funding yourself, but if you can’t do that, you’re stuffed.

[SuburbanFarmer]

In the UK, the NHS has a system based on QALYs — quality-of-life years. In crude terms, it values a year of normal health at £30,000, so if the proposed course of treatment will cost £150,000, the patient would need to have good prospects of having five years of normal life once the treatment is over to get it. For a patient who would need assistance to live because they can’t walk more than a few steps or what have you, the QALY figure might drop to £15,000, so the patient would have to have an expectancy of 10 years of assisted life to get the treatment.

If you don’t like the judgement the doctors come to about the viability of the treatment, you do have the alternative of raising the necessary funding yourself, but if you can’t do that, you’re stuffed.

That kind of makes sense, actually... It's not a fuzzy-feely 'happy' system, but it does sound efficient. The problem, I suspect, is that you need the doctors to be unbiased, and have at least 2-3 opinions involved.

[apeman]

Not so much my side of it rather the hospital's side of it. I don't really have a side of it other than to refute the ''evil NHS'' nonsense which has been put forward.
The true sides to this case were not govt v parents but child v parents. A way to look at it and maybe understand it better would be to consider a case where the parents refused life saving treatment and the courts over ruled their wishes in order to save the childs life. Would the parents be in the right then?

Well thanks Monte.

The problem is that no one here can see their opponent's position.

I can.