How's that Obamacare Repeal Working Out For You?

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

Munchausen by proxy

[Montegriffo]

BTW - there's considerable debate about whether the treatment would work or not for Charlie - but what does he have to loose? he's out cold.....

Simply not true. No one has argued that there is any chance of a cure. This treatment has never been successfull in treating this condition.
The parents refusal to let go is understandable but it is not in the childs best interest to travel thousands of miles for a pointless treatment.

Read the linked article Monte - wait - that would take too much effort - it's easier just to shill.....[/quote]
I have read it and many others. The clinic themselves have now admitted this treatment is highly unlikely to improve Charlie's condition and no longer wish to offer it.
The courts are defending Charlie's rights.

[Zlaxer]

I have read it and many others. The clinic themselves have now admitted this treatment is highly unlikely to improve Charlie's condition and no longer wish to offer it.
The courts are defending Charlie's rights.

Where's the harm to Charlie Monte? Let me guess - the government nanny doctors "Said there's harm...".....OK but what is it?

Is it sufficient to warrant the state displacing parental rights? The articles I've read make it appear that treatment is an IV....and that Charlie is unconscious (possibly brain dead).....What is the harm to Charlie in allowing his parents to try a last resort (at their own expense)?

I find your trust of the state troubling.....do not bring that contagion over here.....

This scenario is setting a terrible president in an area that is becoming more slippery and steep each passing day.

[The Conservative]

The child is already dead. Brain death, deafness, blindness, and comatose. That is a vegetable, not a child. It's tragic, but there was never a "life" option on the table.

Actually, there was at the beginning. Now there isn't, and I am sorry, but fuck anyone who thinks trying was ever off the table. If the child had any chance for a normal life, they should have been given it.

[Zlaxer]

If the child had any chance for a normal life, they should have been given it.

I'm OK with the state not wanting to pay for the treatment in this case (it's has slim to 0% chance of working)....but to come in and say private individuals can't pay for it is cause for alarm IMHO.

[The Conservative]

If the child had any chance for a normal life, they should have been given it.

I'm OK with the state not wanting to pay for the treatment in this case (it has slim to 0% chance of working)....but to come in and say private individuals can't pay for it is cause for alarm IMHO.

That is my problem as well, especially when they had the money to attempt it.

[Zlaxer]

Monte and the nanny state shills are decrying that the state is protecting the right of the child to not be harmed...yet they can't seem to state the nature of the harm, or whether it's enough to displace the rights of the parents. Got to protect their beloved nanny state at all costs...

[The Conservative]

Monte and the nanny state shills are decrying that the state is protecting the right of the child not to be harmed...yet they can't seem to state the nature of the harm, or whether it's enough to displace the rights of the parents. Got to protect their beloved nanny state at all costs...

Fuck them; their nanny state can go live in the Clinton Republic of "It Takes a Village" and hope they don't cross a line and end up dead somewhere.

The parents are the legal guardians; they should have final say over anything and everything. If they have the money, the hospital and state have no say in what they should attempt when the offer was there. If someone had cancer and without treatment, they would die, then someone comes up to them and says they could use CRISPR to eradicate it... but it would cost a million dollars to do so, and you had the money, what right does anyone have to say to try it?

The state? Saying that you should die because cancer wills it?

Fuck that.

[SuburbanFarmer]

The child is already dead. Brain death, deafness, blindness, and comatose. That is a vegetable, not a child. It's tragic, but there was never a "life" option on the table.

Actually, there was at the beginning. Now there isn't, and I am sorry, but fuck anyone who thinks trying was ever off the table. If the child had any chance for a normal life, they should have been given it.

As I understand it, the state paid for years of treatments on him. The fact that one experimental snake oil was skipped at the end is no cause for outrage.

Again, we have no idea what we're doing with genetics yet.

[The Conservative]

The child is already dead. Brain death, deafness, blindness, and comatose. That is a vegetable, not a child. It's tragic, but there was never a "life" option on the table.

Actually, there was at the beginning. Now there isn't, and I am sorry, but fuck anyone who thinks trying was ever off the table. If the child had any chance for a normal life, they should have been given it.

As I understand it, the state paid for years of treatments on him. The fact that one experimental snake oil was skipped at the end is no cause for outrage.

Again, we have no idea what we're doing with genetics yet.

They paid, then when the parents had a chance for something that had an opportunity to work, the state said: "Fuck you." because it wasn't them doing it.