[mewzilla]

I have no problem with the NHS rationing care. They don’t have enough money to cover the bloated bureaucracy, the health care tourists, the looney benefits. They can’t pay for everything.

But this isn’t about money, is it. Not when the parents have other avenues for private care. It’s about who decides for Charlie. The money aspect is a red herring.

This should be scaring the ever-loving excrement out of anyone who depends on the NHS for anything.

[Chickensoup]

But this isn’t about money, is it. Not when the parents have other avenues for private care. It’s about who decides for Charlie. The money aspect is a red herring.

_______________________

actually it is about money. So if this child is stabilized in his current state, he will return as a full nursing care patient who would need round the clock care for the rest of this life.

[Winniesboy]

If the NHS had the absolute power over the little boy's future which you appear to believe, the hospital would not have asked the High Court to adjudicate on an apparently irreconcilable difference between the medical opinion and the parents' wishes. Why go to court if you have the unchallengable final decision anyway? I suppose you will think that the judiciary is just another part of the same corrupt system and would inevitably rubber-stamp the hospital's wishes: but it doesn't take deep research to find that court cases against the NHS have frequently succeeded.

Exactly the same sequence of events would have been equally likely had the child been treated in a British private hospital rather than a NHS hospital. It's the brandishing of this sad case as a weapon against the NHS which is the red herring.