People criticize universal healthcare with scary words like "Death Panels" and use the American flag word of true evil, Socialism. I will never be able to understand them. THEY will need healthcare one day or another. Everyone needs the best possible healthcare some day!
Doctors do not choose to euthanize babies. Parents have every right to care about their babies. Babies are not subjects for experimental drugs that have not been tested on mice or anything else. Brain dead humans are essentially dead and no miracle can start their brains again. Government managed health care is not a purely utilitarian exercise in cost-benefit analysis.
The person identified here is a baby, not a lab rat. People want to ignore that fact versus using a baby as leverage to criticize universal health care. What some people do to win an argument is representative of their desperation to make their side of an otherwise honest debate look better than it should look if true facts were used.
Universal health care does not kill people to save money!
Another unethical argument, in my opinion,, would be to question the doctor offering to use an experimental, untested drug on a baby. Is he out for publicity? Is he trying to make a name for himself and increase his clientele? Is he stupid and careless for offering an unproven drug? Is the experiment doctor trying to make money?
You see, when you look at universal health care in bad ways, unfair, unsavory ways, and do the same for-profit health care, we all lose because we can't find the answer with Bull Shit thinking.
Nicole Russell is one of those people we cannot trust to honestly argue against or for anything. Her words are intended to create anger and fear, and sow distrust of doctors to NO GOOD END. Nicole's is not a fact-based argument, it is emotional and useless in helping America create a healthcare system for every American that is viable and effective as well as affordable.
Please keep in perspective what we mean by "affordable." DoD just launched a BILLION DOLLAR aircraft carrier that very possibly will NEVER see battle.
She took an extreme case on an English baby who is already dead, and says utilitarian, cost cutting / saving measures are why English doctors want to allow the dead baby to die the death it has already "lived." Modern medicine is both a gift and a burden in that it can keep bodies functioning if we hook up enough machines and administer enough drugs.
Nicole is wrong in many, many ways. The biggest issue I take with her is her false equivalency and stupid comment that the doctors, science, and the law, not to mention philosophical points of view of quality if life (being alive) are all wrong. Logic and intelligent, mature points of view cannot be shared with Nicole.
The most important thing Nicole ignores is that the so called " hope" for Charlie Gard is a terrible, ugly experiment that has never been tried on mice. What will Nicole say if Charlie gets a dose of the experiment and Charlie bleeds or convulsions or explodes?
Are the doctors more humane to experiment on a medically deceased baby?
Nicole makes an incredibly stupid argument against government "controlled" medicine, science, experts, doctors, utilitarian calculations, and the law, not to mention humane kindness for a human.
Bottom line is we can QUESTION Nicole's approach by her irrational idea a doctor wants to kill a baby, not spare the baby further pain. Nicole might be out to make a name for herself like the experimental drug doctor in the United States. For example, we KNOW Tweety is trying to make a bigger splash when HE stands up for this baby, yet cares less about Americans getting health care. Nicole, are you out to make more money with your approach to universal health care issues?
"In the UK, Socialized Medicine Yanks Baby's Life Support" [VERY wrong minded! Even STUPID!]
Nicole Russell, The Federalist July 6, 2017
"In a heartbreaking case in the United Kingdom, Connie Yates and Chris Gard just lost their final appeal in battling for their son Charlie’s life. This means the hospital where 10-month-old Charlie has been staying since birth will now legally remove his life support, essentially euthanizing an infant against his parents’ wishes."
The baby Charles was already essentially dead, Nicole, and Charles did not wish to be tortured by you or anyone else to liv. Charles knew he was dead, only YOU did not, and his parents were not right to extend his death as they did. I am sorry to say this, but the doctors knew Charles was dead, not because of any cost or any amount of money, but because he WAS DEAD.
Nicole, your grandstanding to get a published story is sick and demeaning to the doctors, even the parents because we all recognize their wish for Charles to come back to life and live a long and healthy life, but especially to Charles. Charles was essentially dead, not almost alive Nicole. Grind your axe on some other example of bad healthcare decision by "Government," or, as was the true case, by doctors who know when a baby is dead.
Good luck writing better stories in the future Nicole. This one was bad. You should have cared more for Charles and not your byline.
