(1) I live in NZ, which has the same healthcare & family courts system. You are 100% right to say disarmament weakened our peoples' ability to resist the spread of socialism. I will explain in this thread.
(2) When dear little Charlie Gard was near the end of his life, I researched his case, including reading the court filings (which are normally secret but were released in this case). He should have had international medical experts in the field assess him in person at the start.
(3) Charlie Gard had a very rare disease that was not apparent until he was several months old. His parents found a US doctor online who held out false hope and failed to visit to examine him, or even to obtain basic info from his treating hospital.
(4) The medical and legal case then deteriorated and all manner of emotional reactions were played out in public. Meanwhile Charlie lay in hospital for many more months with no hope for recovery. Had the US doctor been more helpful at the start, this would have been avoided.
(5) Eventually the Dr visited, and admitted there was no hope for recovery. I remember realizing that it would have been clinically possible to reach this conclusion about 5 months earlier.
(6) The millions the UK govt wasted on medical care & legal costs far outweighed the $50k a visit would have cost. In our socialized medicine systems, doctors are unable to secure common sense funding to help with a diagnostic decision that could save the taxpayer millions.
(7) Thousands of people a year around the world would benefit from online or in-person access to the medical specialists who are the best in the field of their particular rare disorder. Most of the doctors are in the US, Israel, Japan, Australia, South Africa & EU countries.
(8) About 30-40 countries that have socialized medicine & the resources to purchase this care SHOULD work on a system that makes this common sense rare-disorder care happen, saving lives, harm & a lot of taxpayer money.
(9) It would also advance scientific progress by helping the medical specialists learn more about the rare disorders, with flow on effects for common disorders, too. It's exactly the kind of project the UN could make itself useful for. It would be entirely self funded.
(10) Instead, there will continue to be heartbreaking cases of babies with rare disorders suffering needlessly, their families getting severe PTSD from it, & an untold number of less severe cases (incl children/adults) going unnoticed.
(11) That's the medical side of it. Now for the legal/ethical side.
Doing away with the state's ability to protect a child from a bad parent if it is genuinely called for, is not something I want to see, and it will never happen. The US has such a system. Voting can change it.
Doing away with the state's ability to protect a child from a bad parent if it is genuinely called for, is not something I want to see, and it will never happen. The US has such a system. Voting can change it.
(12) If voters in a state, or nationally, really want to reduce the ability of the courts to protect children, they should work towards that legislatively, not by direct action. As a truly last resort, Americans can use force. It's a last resort for good reason.
(13) Because Charlie Gard's parents didn't get medical advice they trusted until it was too late, it's very likely that he did suffer pain and discomfort from the type of care he needed to stay alive. Made distraught by hospital bullying, they could not see that.
(14) "Life support" in ICU is worth the discomfort and potential pain/distress if you have a chance of survival. We all need to grapple with this issue in our own care planning should we need it. Usually doctors give the family the info then family decides to release the person.
(15) The way the Gards were treated in that hospital was appalling. It only compounded their grief & it made it impossible for them to do their job of deciding to free Charlie from his suffering. So the courts had to intervene. IMO their decisions were sound & as fast as possible
(16) They certainly weren't the "bad" parents the system is set up to deal with. They were devoted, loving, confused and grief stricken parents. They believed the state was denying Charlie a chance to live.
Remembering the trauma just made me cry again.
>Takes a deep breath.
Remembering the trauma just made me cry again.
>Takes a deep breath.
(17) Because the courts weren't being emotionally abused by the hospital, they were able to make the right decisions. They relied, as courts always do, on expert medical opinion, not emotions. There were some legal shenanigans involving counsel but that's a side issue.
(18) Even when the time came for life support to be removed, the court couldn't trust the parents to ensure everything was done to minimize suffering as he died. At least they got to say goodbye in a hospice, where none of the staff had bullied them.
(19) I doubt the healthcare and courts systems in the UK have learned the right lessons from this case. As I noted above, every country would do well to learn these lessons and take constructive actions to prevent another compounded tragedy like it.
(20) Maybe that's the one good thing that can come out of the Charlie Gard case. People with open minds & a preference for rational thinking can learn what NOT to do.
(21) Left-leaning medical doctors in the US don't like the term "health freedom." Like every term the left doesn't like, they don't understand it.
They feel it's about economics and that it's anti-science. Those are red herrings.
They feel it's about economics and that it's anti-science. Those are red herrings.
(22) The freedom to choose the healthcare you want, (or that you want for your loved one who can't understand/communicate their wants) is a natural right. As such, the state can affirm & protect it, or it can take it away.
You can see why Americans have more #HealthFreedom.
You can see why Americans have more #HealthFreedom.
(23) Even in the USA, health freedom is under threat, in the same way all other freedoms are.
Every political decision affecting health or healthcare must be considered in terms of health freedom. There should be a "health freedom impact statement."
Every political decision affecting health or healthcare must be considered in terms of health freedom. There should be a "health freedom impact statement."
(24) I claim my natural right to choose what healthcare I will or will not purchase or otherwise access. At all times. In all situations. Even when the "science" loving weird weather religion proponents paternalistically insist a treatment isn't "evidence-based" to their liking.
(25) However, I also own a dog (no kids). I feel constant guilt: Am I doing enough to notice if he's sick? Is he in pain? Which drug is best? What if he's not resting/exercising enough to get better? And on and on it goes.
(26) Imagine what I'd be like with a human child? This is why I don't have any.
I use this example to show how hard it is to make decisions for a loved one. It's why having a good doctor you can trust is crucial for exercising your right to health freedom.
I use this example to show how hard it is to make decisions for a loved one. It's why having a good doctor you can trust is crucial for exercising your right to health freedom.
(27) Maximizing health freedom also helps the economy function, enabling a country to afford to treat more people, including those who can't afford the best care through no fault of their own. Healthcare in the US is totally F'd up, but thank God for Trump starting to fix it.
(28) I hope I've helped answer your question and I'm sorry for writing so much about it. It's just one of the issues I care the most about. Happy to respond to any further questions from you, Derek.
#USA: Greatest country on earth.🇺🇸
END
#USA: Greatest country on earth.🇺🇸
END
(29) @threadreaderapp unroll please, thanks.
(30) Unrolled version: threadreaderapp.com/thread/9886100…
