Posted on 02/14/2015 6:30:48 PM PST by NRx
Doctors believe that a terminally-ill teenager who has a brain tumour will die within weeks after a judge gave them permission to withhold treatment.
The 18-year-old man’s parents wanted chemotherapy to continue and his mother had launched a “passionate” fight “for his life” at a fraught late-night hearing at the Court of Protection in London.
She said her son was “absolutely adored” and a “miracle child” and urged judge Mrs Justice Hogg not to rule that he “has to die”.
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
I don’t agree with the parents’ choices, but I am ever more against the decision being taken away from them by government.
Can we sue the judge for malpractice?
Clearly the government owns your care now.
That is not the point!!!
The point is that PRior Obamacare anyone with insurance was NEVER denied treatment, and they were left with bills but had options on payment.
Now CARE can be specifically denied despite having insurance because the judge is your insurer!
Good bye America, genocide is here by political fiat.
Fraudulent statement. A doctor would never force someone under the gun to get an operation.
Now a judge is your insurance and can deny care. Never was that possible with private insurance.
The purpose of medicine is human beings. The purpose of human beings is not medicine.
I don’t know if you’re aware of it, but that has become a contentious issue.
Yeah, if it were my daughter in that situation... I’ll just say that there would be some folks that would live in fear for the rest of their lives and leave it at that.
Reading the article is usually a good idea.
.
The patient is 18, not 81.
No indications organs are shutting down.
I understand in the UK-they pay incredible amounts of taxes for universal health care.
Now they are rationing medical care for UK citizens?
I wonder why, what with the reports of free elective cosmetic surgery, and sex change operations, a true medical need for care is a worry for the hospital doctors or the courts.
Are they now looking at ROI (Returns on Investments)?
Or are they judging quality of life?
Is there a published chart for citizens to know exactly when they have exceeded their share of “free” medical care, or have been judged useless to the government?
Again, no indications of organ failure in this article.
So they are not artificially animating a dead body.
Unless you have more information not posted here.....
All I can say is that I am prolife but I see no problem in withdrawing futile care.
And there is one major organ failure, the brain in this case.
It may well be futile and torturous both but it is none of your business. It I’d the families business. There is no middle ground here, either you are on the governments side ot you recognize the rights of the family.
Thank you.
Thank you.
This just illustrates/proves the real downside of giving one human, no matter at what level of government, the power over another person. The US judicial system is loaded/contaminated with such ‘judges’. Society then moves by individuals not by accepted societal rules/laws. I have lived many years through many wars and seen such evil by people.
Plus a few well-publicized prosecutions of physicians who continue to treat such patients for "overutilization." Doctors will learn to serve the state or they will be out of business.
the rationing board in the UK is named “NICE”...talk about Orwellian language.
And they decide if you live or die: if you don’t meet the criteria, you die.
One notorious case was the Lockerbie bomber, in a Scottish prison, who was denied chemotherapy (and if you read between the lines it was because his age meant he didn’t meet the criteria). Ghadaffy had a fit and got him sent home to Libya, and guess what: The guy lived for two years on treatment.
It caused a bit of a scandal when he didn’t die on time, and lots of critics claimed he wasn’t at death’s door and shouldn’t have been released.
The fact he was terminal because they refused to treat him was carefully ignored in the press...
I wouldn’t have believed it if I hadn’t looked it up for myself. Whoever came up with that either never read C. S. Lewis, or they did and they’re very naughty.
this is govt healthcare.
when the govt takes over healthcare, it has to pay the bills. it will then look to cut expenses whenever possible. elderly and dying patients are just liabilities to be removed as soon as possible
this is not conjecture or speculation.
this is historical fact.
Without socialized medicine, there are eventually practical limits to the care that can be provided to a patient. The limit is financial, perhaps emotional.
With socialized medicine, there is the misconception that “everybody gets everything” and it’s “free” so there is no mechanism through which expectations for care are limited in the individual case.
Obviously somebody gave the family some reason to hope one more round of chemo could have some benefit.
Socialized medicine will ALWAYS end up limiting care. Politically connected will get the best care. Everyone else gets what is left.
This is an extreme that SHOULD be pointed out as part of the abomination of socialized medicine - because government is deciding where care ends instead of the individual or family.
If the family were actually paying for the care, chances are this would have ended long before this - but you never know - it would be up to the family to decide. That’s important.
Her sister, who was a nurse, was furious.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.