Charlie Gard

[jamil]

The problem is... "it's complicated". Complicated by feelings, complicated by hope, complicated by disconnected pricing information, etc.

I'm not arguing one way or the another on "who decides?", just pointing out the points of failure in those negotiations. I would guess that sometimes there must be someone that can look at it impartially.

I guess.

Of course it's complicated. The last part is the part I disagree with. Who's business is it to say there must be someone impartial, and who gets to determine who the impartial party is? And who gets to determine how much power they have? To me, the balance of where that line goes is very close to it's non of their ****ing business except when actual harm is evident. Evident. Not just theoretically possible.

 

[actaeon277]

The parents had come up with money, so they weren't taking any from the "system".
Even though the treatment was experimental, the docs could have learned some things to maybe help the next kid.
If you leave it up to the bureaucracies, docs will be "letting the bad blood out".

 

[gopher]

The parents had come up with money, so they weren't taking any from the "system".
Even though the treatment was experimental, the docs could have learned some things to maybe help the next kid.
If you leave it up to the bureaucracies, docs will be "letting the bad blood out".

Not sure I'm taking your "docs will be letting the bad blood out" comment the way you meant it, but there are pretty strong medical malpractice laws here in the US and I would assume also in the UK.

 

[actaeon277]

Not sure I'm taking your "docs will be letting the bad blood out" comment the way you meant it, but there are pretty strong medical malpractice laws here in the US and I would assume also in the UK.

Yes there are (here).
Name all the medical advances the UK has come up with since WWII.

 

[actaeon277]

10 Surprising Facts about American Health Care | NCPA

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/561737

And being able to see the doctor doesn't matter much, when the doctor doesn't seem to be able to do anything for cancer or other long term deadly stuff.

 

[actaeon277]

Medical Malpractice Liability: United Kingdom (England and Wales) | Law Library of Congress

In the UK, you sue the NHS, not the doctor/nurse/technician that caused your problem.
Also, only covers financial damages.

 

[actaeon277]

Also
United Kingdom Medical Malpractice Laws

 

[HoughMade]

Medical Malpractice Liability: United Kingdom (England and Wales) | Law Library of Congress

In the UK, you sue the NHS, not the doctor/nurse/technician that caused your problem.
Also, only covers financial damages.

Viva La USA. HoughMade needs to eat too.

 

[JTScribe]

The parents had come up with money, so they weren't taking any from the "system".
Even though the treatment was experimental, the docs could have learned some things to maybe help the next kid.
If you leave it up to the bureaucracies, docs will be "letting the bad blood out".

If they let Charlie leave the system, and the treatment worked, that would not only show the failure of the NHS, but other parents would be clamoring for the treatment from the NHS in the future. Can't have that - there's a reason patient deaths to tend to spike toward the end of their fiscal year.

 

[HoughMade]

[video=youtube;Ch-SgOfQTMY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ch-SgOfQTMY[/video]

If they let Charlie leave the system, and the treatment worked, that would not only show the failure of the NHS, but other parents would be clamoring for the treatment from the NHS in the future. Can't have that - there's a reason patient deaths to tend to spike toward the end of their fiscal year.