{"id":17259,"date":"2017-07-05T09:50:46","date_gmt":"2017-07-05T13:50:46","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.megalextoria.com\/wordpress\/?p=17259"},"modified":"2017-07-05T09:51:43","modified_gmt":"2017-07-05T13:51:43","slug":"british-courts-wont-let-these-parents-try-to-save-their-babys-life","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.megalextoria.com\/wordpress\/index.php\/2017\/07\/05\/british-courts-wont-let-these-parents-try-to-save-their-babys-life\/","title":{"rendered":"British Courts Won’t Let These Parents Try to Save Their Baby’s Life"},"content":{"rendered":"

British Courts Won’t Let These Parents Try to Save Their Baby’s Life<\/h2>\n

Writing about the sub-par single-payer healthcare system in the United Kingdom, Paul Krugman infamously claimed<\/a> that, \u201cIn Britain, the government itself runs the hospitals and employs the doctors.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

We\u2019ve all heard scare stories about how that works in practice; these stories are false.\u201d<\/p>\n

I\u2019ve pointed out that there are plenty of \u201cscare stories\u201d about the National Health Service that are completely true. And completely scary.<\/p>\n

But don\u2019t take my word for it.<\/p>\n

Just click here<\/a>, here<\/a>, here<\/a>, here<\/a>, here<\/a>, here<\/a>, here<\/a>, here<\/a>, here<\/a>, here<\/a>, here<\/a>, here<\/a>, here<\/a>, here<\/a>, here<\/a>, here<\/a>, or here<\/a> if you want examples.<\/p>\n

To be fair, there surely are horror stories from every health care system. Humans are imperfect, after all.<\/p>\n

But I suspect shoddy care is more common when healthcare providers get a salary from the government. Under such an arrangement, patients are a burden rather than a source of revenue.<\/p>\n

Set that aside, however, because there\u2019s a feature of the U.K.\u2019s single-payer system that is reprehensible and it has nothing to do with the quality (or lack thereof) of care.<\/p>\n

A Baby\u2019s Only Chance for Survival<\/strong><\/p>\n

The UK-based Daily Mail<\/em> reports<\/a> on this very disturbing case.<\/p>\n

The parents of terminally-ill baby Charlie Gard are \u2018utterly distraught\u2019 and facing fresh heartbreak after losing their final appeal in the European Court of Human Rights. Chris Gard, 32, and Connie Yates, 31, wanted to take their 10-month-old son \u2013 who suffers from a rare genetic condition and has brain damage \u2013 to the US to undergo a therapy trial.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

\u2026the couple, from Bedfont, west London, raised almost \u00a31.4 million so they could take their son to America but a series of courts ruled in favour of the British doctors. \u2026the ECHR rejected a last-ditch plea and their \u2018final\u2019 decision means the baby\u2019s life support machine will be switched off. \u2026It comes after a High Court judge in April ruled against a trip to America and in favour of Great Ormond Street doctors. \u2026Specialists in the US have offered a therapy called nucleoside. \u2026barrister Richard Gordon QC, who leads Charlie\u2019s parents\u2019 legal team, \u2026said parents should be free to make decisions about their children\u2019s treatment unless any proposal poses a risk of significant harm. \u2026Charlie\u2019s parents have raised nearly \u00a31.4 million to pay for therapy in America.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Ian Tuttle of National Review<\/em> explains<\/a> what\u2019s really at stake in this case.<\/p>\n

Any day now, they\u2019ll kill Charlie Gard. \u2026Charlie\u2019s parents have raised enough money from private donations to fund the experimental treatment, but the court decision prohibits his removal to the U.S.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

\u2026successive courts in the United Kingdom and in Europe simultaneously found that Connie Yates and Chris Gard had devoted themselves unhesitatingly to their son\u2019s welfare for ten months, and also that Yates and Gard could not be trusted to act in their son\u2019s best interests. \u2026pertinent to this case, under what circumstances should the tightest bonds of affection \u2014 those between parent and child \u2014 be subordinated to the judgment of the state?<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The part that astounds me (in a very bad way) is that the courts won\u2019t allow the parents to bring their son to the United States.<\/p>\n

The Worst Kind of Thuggery<\/strong><\/p>\n

They\u2019re not asking or expecting the taxpayers to pick up the cost. They\u2019ve raised money to cover the experimental treatment. Yet the government won\u2019t let them try to save their son\u2019s life.<\/p>\n

Even if the doctors are right and the experimental treatment fails, why shouldn\u2019t the parents be allowed to do the medical equivalent of throwing a Hail Mary at the end of a football game?<\/p>\n

I can\u2019t even imagine what the parents must be thinking. If some government official said I had to allow one of my kids to die and that I didn\u2019t have the right to try anything and everything to avert that outcome, I don\u2019t even want to think of what I might do.<\/p>\n

I used to think policies such as asset forfeiture<\/a> or IRS abuses<\/a> were the worst form of government thuggery. But\u2026<\/p>\n

Reprinted from International Liberty<\/a><\/em>.<\/p>\n


\nDaniel J. Mitchell
\n<\/a><\/p>\n

Daniel J. Mitchell is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute who specializes in fiscal policy, particularly tax reform, international tax competition, and the economic burden of government spending. He also serves on the editorial board of the Cayman Financial Review.<\/p>\n

This article was originally published on FEE.org. Read the original article<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\"\"
\n