The Goat Pen

In April a high court ruled that it was in Charlie's best interest to remain at Great Ormand Street and to go off life support in order to undergo palliative care. Justice Francis ruled that, ultimately, there was no hope of Gard's recovery or even improvement - even the (unnamed) doctor behind the experimental treatment in the US agreed, upon seeing additional documentation, that it was "unlikely that he will improve with that [experimental] therapy."

Even if the treatment could slow further progression of the disease (something that also would be unlikely, according to documentation in Justice Francis's decision), it could not reverse existing damage. The remainder of Charlie's life would be painful; Ormond Street specialists believe Charlie is capable of experiencing pain, though not expressing it, a factor in the court's final decision.

So basically the parents are all about extending the child's misery.

And that's not a single payer issue - it's strictly 4 different court decisions regarding the well-being of minor. Similar to decsions courts make here - think of parents who put their kids in peril due to religious beliefs/superstitions.

And there's not a private insurer in the US that would shell out for that kind of experimental therapy. Not only no, but hell no.

They don't have to, the family raised 1.7M for medical costs.

bluetick wrote:In April a high court ruled that it was in Charlie's best interest to remain at Great Ormand Street and to go off life support in order to undergo palliative care. Justice Francis ruled that, ultimately, there was no hope of Gard's recovery or even improvement - even the (unnamed) doctor behind the experimental treatment in the US agreed, upon seeing additional documentation, that it was "unlikely that he will improve with that [experimental] therapy."

Even if the treatment could slow further progression of the disease (something that also would be unlikely, according to documentation in Justice Francis's decision), it could not reverse existing damage. The remainder of Charlie's life would be painful; Ormond Street specialists believe Charlie is capable of experiencing pain, though not expressing it, a factor in the court's final decision.

So basically the parents are all about extending the child's misery.

They don't know he is in misery or not. They admit such. The parents have $1.7M. Why not let them try it in the US? And why not let the parents take him home?

What? Europe's not safe? Don't they have gun restrictions?

http://www.lifeandstylemag.com/posts/ge ... ins-135725

Trump's team forgets to book him a hotel room at the G20 summit. I'm sure he's got a great handle on the important stuff.

https://www.vox.com/world/2017/7/6/1592 ... -hotel-g20

I can't wait to see how mercilessly the other leaders mock him at this summit. It's going to be humiliating for the US but we deserve it.

The Poles' reception of Trump must have disappointed you.

sardis wrote:They don't know he is in misery or not. They admit such. The parents have $1.7M. Why not let them try it in the US? And why not let the parents take him home?

Again, your beef is with 4 separate courts, including some kind of European high court - It's not an insurance issue. The 1.7 mil raised for the kid is not an insurance issue. The reasonings of the courts wrt the welfare of the child is not an insurance issue. It sucks that they can't take the kid home, but that's a medical decision backed up by the courts. You understand this, yes? Your article suggesting this is a single-payer death panel situation is bs.

I wish I could sit on sardis's death panel...

I don't understand why these republicans and whoever are giant pussy's when it comes to town halls.

I'd love to have one if I was a republican.

First question I'd ask is - everyone that voted for me stand up.

Second question/statement is - if you aren't here to complain about the repeal of Obamacare, please sit down

for those of you still standing - why in the hell did you vote for me?

then I'd remind them of two things

1. I was elected by the majority of people that wanted health care repealed
2. The constitution doesn't say anywhere it is the governments obligation to provide you with health care - affordable or otherwise. That was Obama's promise.

now lets open the floor up to stories about how you've made incredibly bad life decisions and we have to use tax dollars to make it up to you.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ ... id=U142DHP

A remarkable admission on the republicans part. They never had a plan for replacing obamacare all during Obama's 2 terms - all of their votes and posturing was for show. And the GOP congress never tried to plan a replacement during the election season because they never thought Trump would win. Apparently they didn't have plans for political appointments, either.

Well, that would have the benefit of you not having to hold many more town hall meetings...

it would be a reminder of how democracy works.

fuckerrs who voted democrat yelling at republicans to "do your job"

I'm yelling at republicans to do their job too - but we are expecting completely different actions on their part.

the biggest mistake / problem that Obamacare has created is this perception that the government has an obligation to provide you with affordable health care.

Think about that for a minute - in 2010 we were bailing out banks and GM, the stock market tanked, unemployment was double digits, credit was locked, entire countries were going belly up - and our government decides now is the time to provide 40 million people with subsidies while mandating every citizen in the country purchase health care that is bloated with overhead costs that most of them do not need or use.

and now the lead story whenever we talk about health care is "24 million people will be without health care" - no, 24 million people will be without a government subsidy program we couldn't afford to begin , and btw, they didn't have health care in 2013 or before.

southern ohio heroin update
------------------------

Butler County Sheriff Richard K. Jones said his deputies don't use Narcan now and never will under his watch, despite its effectiveness in reversing the effects of heroin overdoses.

He is the only southwestern Ohio sheriff whose department doesn't use it.

Deputies in Hamilton, Clermont and Warren counties all carry Narcan.

Drug overdoses continue to be the leading cause of death in Butler County, according to the coroner, and the county is on track to break last year's record for the highest number of overdose deaths.

"The disturbing trend of overdose deaths involving fentanyl in Butler County continues at an alarming rate," said Butler County Coroner Lisa Mannix in a recent press conference to discuss the epidemic.

But Jones said when people who overdose are revived, they're often violent and not too thrilled to wake up and see deputies.

"'I've seen reports to where people have been Narcaned 20 times," Jones tells FOX19 NOW.

"Not 20 at one setting, but 20 separate times where the life squads and fire trucks and the police have to go out. But in Butler County, not so."

Only emergency medical technicians on ambulances will carry and use Narcan, according to the sheriff.

His remarks Thursday come after a Middletown city councilman recently brought national attention to that Butler County city by suggesting letting addicts die instead of repeatedly reviving them with Narcan.

The controversy prompted Middletown's city manager to issue a statement that first responders would continue going to all emergencies and rending aid.

"We are responding to every call and rendering aid as needed. We give Narcan where it is appropriate. Period," City Manager Douglas Adkins wrote on the city's website.

I wonder if he thinks that smokers who get cancer should be left to die without treatment?

hedge wrote:I wonder if he thinks that smokers who get cancer should be left to die without treatment?

he would if they called the EMTs to treat them for OD's 20x

Yeah, chemo, radiation, multiple prescriptions and extended hospital stays are much cheaper than EMT's...

hedge wrote:Yeah, chemo, radiation, multiple prescriptions and extended hospital stays are much cheaper than EMT's...

that's not really the point

besides its not like the EMTs just shoot a bottle of narcan into the guy and then send him on his way.

Why must you glorify tobacco related cancer?