This is very low even for you Ramirez. You think that you or the Rump know more than the professionals. It’s then Ok for parents to let their children die when they choose to treat them with herbs and prayers because they know better.
Charlie Gard (4 August 2016 – 28 July 2017) was a British boy from Bedfont, London, who was born with a rare genetic condition known as mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome that causes progressive brain damage and muscle failure, including the muscles needed to breathe. There is no treatment, and it causes death in infancy.
His parents, Chris Gard and Connie Yates, brought him to the Great Ormond Street Hospital (GOSH) in October 2016 because he was having trouble breathing, and he was put on mechanical ventilation. His condition continued to deteriorate, and the genetic condition was diagnosed in November. The doctors and parents initially agreed to attempt an experimental treatment, but after the child had seizures that caused more brain damage in January, the doctors withdrew their support for trying the treatment because it was futile and would only prolong whatever pain the infant was suffering. The doctors thought it best for the child to remove life support and allow him to die, but the parents still wanted to try the treatment.
But there is more:
As of April 2017, there were only experimental treatments for MDDS; these had been used only a few times with little evidence of efficacy, and had not been tried with anyone who had the RR2MB variant of the disease nor on anyone with the kind of MDDS that affects the brain, as the RRM2B variant does.
The cute little kid never had a chance. Valar Morghulis!
Your cartoon is an insult to decency with a superficial understanding of the facts. This seems to be the American way now. Also a bit rich from someone I suspect would be happy to see the Affordable Care Act repealed. Leaving millions of people without any medical care. I have lived with both systems and would trust the NHS to be concerned with taking care of my health not what I can afford to pay.
Parental whining c as used my concern. I know parents will sacrifice ANY THING for their children but to TOTALLY IGNORE reality, make the parents seem crazy. Bless this child but not the parents who will undoubtedly cash-in on media deals…books, etc
Did someone die as a result of a government decision? Under what circumstances? In Friggin’ England, and you blame the ACA? And you have the friggin’ nerve to waste our time on something you know nothing about? Typical Ramirez. Typical republitard.
If all accidents and illnesses were preventable by will, and if humans did not care about one another, I could understand the objection to universal health care.
I have not been following the story closely, but I doubt the family could afford to take the sick infant to the US for treatment on their own.The transportation expense alone with an ICU in tow would have been horrific. This is the core of this issue. If the parents couldn’t afford the cost themselves and the treatment itself was very probably futile, then why is the British government to blame?
The irony of the nonsense being spouted here is that this is about the money. Sure, call it the UK government’s “fault” for denying tax money to support a dead end treatment. But in the Valhalla of the fevered republican fantasy, every individual should pay for their own healthcare. So, they exploit this tragic situation by advocating more government financing for the futile care of the baby. In fact, I’ll bet the baby would have already died if the parents had not been financed by the government to keep him alive. So it was the government sponsored UK system that even gave them the potential option of trying an experimental treatment. Believe me, commercial insurance wouldn’t have paid for the experimental treatment.
And don’t go whining about donations or the US helping to pay. Those are options unavailable to McConnell’s poor white rural constituents.
What am I missing? Come on, right wingers out there. Continue to defend your illogical, unethical, unprincipled, fact-free nonsense.
Charlie’s parents wanted to take Charlie to the US for an experimental treatment offered by a doctor who didn’t examine Charlie in person or even examine all of his charts. The doctors at the hospital in the UK knew that Charlie’s brain & muscles were already too ravaged by his disease for any treatment to work. After finally examining Charlie, the American doctor agreed.
Ramirez & the Republicans want to exploit this tragedy to deny healthcare to American babies who have perfectly treatable health problems. It’s shameful.
Well, Mr. Ramirez, you really have everyone really up in an up roar. But what does England’s medical decisions have to do with our own ACA? I seem to have missed the point. That poor child’s medical condition has nothing to do with our medical insurance. It never did. It was always in God’s hands.
This cartoon is totally unfair. This little boy was hopelessly debilitated would not live a normal life and actually could not even live a sentient life. To prolong it was hopelessly cruel. As a parent I realize I would fight to keep my child going, but sometimes you have to be realistic, give up and let the little soul go in peace. Those who believe in a heaven should be rejoicing for him now.
Ramirez has it dead right. The $ had been raised for the experimental treatment online long ago. The British ‘death panel’ couldn’t give up control, or the next family with a sick child might want to make their own decisions too.
I’m in Canada, and after 3 years wasted with our socialized health system I got a diagnosis at the Mayo Clinic. No 3 month waits between each Dr. appt. or test: 1 Week covered it all. Instead of 5-10 minute visits with specialists I had a first visit with a neurologist for 1 1/4 hours. I could go on and on. Only Canada, Cuba and N. Korea prevent private health care to compete with gov’t care. Total cost US$10k about 15 yrs ago. Cheap at 3 x that price.
The U.S. infant mortality rate is far far worse than the U.K. or other universal care countries. Nice try Mr Ramirez but horribly wrong and ignorant – again.
1st: Ramirez is deliberately, shamefully, trying to claim that the baby died because the government denied the baby necessary healthcare, and he is using this to imply that if the US had a national healthcare system like the UK, that things like this would happen.
That’s BS on so many levels.
2nd: no, experimental treatments were not denied to the baby. In fact, the doctors at Great Ormond Street Hospital tried to recruit the doctor who supposedly offered an experimental treatment. The problem was, the treatment wasn’t just “experimental” – it was largely vaporware, and had never been through even animal testing. In fact, there are no treatments which can help this condition, much less cure it.
3rd: the “government” did not deny anyone anything. It was a judge, a member of the independent judiciary, who ruled that further “heroic or experimental measures” to prolong the baby’s life were not in the baby’s best interest, as there was no possible good outcome, and there was some reason to believe that the baby was in constant distress, if not actual pain.
4th: see point the third – this was never about cost, or bureaucracy. It was a ruling made about a child’s welfare and best interests. It may seem perverse that a baby’s “best interest” might be that he be allowed to die — but there are conditions where there is no possible good outcome, only the prolongation of pain.
5th: to misrepresent this tragic death as propaganda to tell people in America that they shouldn’t have a national healthcare system, is utterly disgusting – especially given that under America’s current private system, infant mortality is worse than just about any other industrial nation in the world.
There is more information at https://reaction.life/charlie-gard-facts/ if anyone is interested.
But Ramirez ought to be ashamed. And so should anyone who spreads stupid false understanding of a real tragedy.
Amazing – those prostrate before a compromised medical establishment applaud government telling parents they must kneel to the elites who determine their children’s healthcare. No one questioned the seriousness of Charlie’s condition, we, along with his parents, just questioned the medical elites and government courts’ judgement that disabled people like Charlie have lives not worth living. Read their judgements – that was their case. Stop sneering with labels that protect you from thinking, people
BE THIS GUY almost 7 years ago
No, he was the unfortunate victim of mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome.
Say What Now‽ Premium Member almost 7 years ago
This is very low even for you Ramirez. You think that you or the Rump know more than the professionals. It’s then Ok for parents to let their children die when they choose to treat them with herbs and prayers because they know better.
Baslim the Beggar Premium Member almost 7 years ago
Lying Ramirez! (I know, it’s redundant.)
From Wikipedia:
Charlie Gard (4 August 2016 – 28 July 2017) was a British boy from Bedfont, London, who was born with a rare genetic condition known as mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome that causes progressive brain damage and muscle failure, including the muscles needed to breathe. There is no treatment, and it causes death in infancy.
His parents, Chris Gard and Connie Yates, brought him to the Great Ormond Street Hospital (GOSH) in October 2016 because he was having trouble breathing, and he was put on mechanical ventilation. His condition continued to deteriorate, and the genetic condition was diagnosed in November. The doctors and parents initially agreed to attempt an experimental treatment, but after the child had seizures that caused more brain damage in January, the doctors withdrew their support for trying the treatment because it was futile and would only prolong whatever pain the infant was suffering. The doctors thought it best for the child to remove life support and allow him to die, but the parents still wanted to try the treatment.
But there is more:
As of April 2017, there were only experimental treatments for MDDS; these had been used only a few times with little evidence of efficacy, and had not been tried with anyone who had the RR2MB variant of the disease nor on anyone with the kind of MDDS that affects the brain, as the RRM2B variant does.
The cute little kid never had a chance. Valar Morghulis!
rdfrdf Premium Member almost 7 years ago
Your cartoon is an insult to decency with a superficial understanding of the facts. This seems to be the American way now. Also a bit rich from someone I suspect would be happy to see the Affordable Care Act repealed. Leaving millions of people without any medical care. I have lived with both systems and would trust the NHS to be concerned with taking care of my health not what I can afford to pay.
KenseidenXL almost 7 years ago
Have you no decency?!
clayusmcret Premium Member almost 7 years ago
Michael, you’ve got the government medicine-sponsors heads spinning. Bravo.
Crabbyrino Premium Member almost 7 years ago
Parental whining c as used my concern. I know parents will sacrifice ANY THING for their children but to TOTALLY IGNORE reality, make the parents seem crazy. Bless this child but not the parents who will undoubtedly cash-in on media deals…books, etc
walfishj almost 7 years ago
Did someone die as a result of a government decision? Under what circumstances? In Friggin’ England, and you blame the ACA? And you have the friggin’ nerve to waste our time on something you know nothing about? Typical Ramirez. Typical republitard.
FrannieL Premium Member almost 7 years ago
Not well done Mr. Ramirez.
lonecat almost 7 years ago
Sometimes Ramirez is just stupid, but sometimes he’s actually evil.
julie.mason1 Premium Member almost 7 years ago
If mom and dad were actually responsible for paying for Charlie’s care, he would have died last fall.
Wlly Blly almost 7 years ago
I feel sorry for you, Ramirez. Using a tragedy like that, that you know nothing about, to further your own ignorant political beliefs. Shame.
superposition almost 7 years ago
If all accidents and illnesses were preventable by will, and if humans did not care about one another, I could understand the objection to universal health care.
twclix almost 7 years ago
I have not been following the story closely, but I doubt the family could afford to take the sick infant to the US for treatment on their own.The transportation expense alone with an ICU in tow would have been horrific. This is the core of this issue. If the parents couldn’t afford the cost themselves and the treatment itself was very probably futile, then why is the British government to blame?
The irony of the nonsense being spouted here is that this is about the money. Sure, call it the UK government’s “fault” for denying tax money to support a dead end treatment. But in the Valhalla of the fevered republican fantasy, every individual should pay for their own healthcare. So, they exploit this tragic situation by advocating more government financing for the futile care of the baby. In fact, I’ll bet the baby would have already died if the parents had not been financed by the government to keep him alive. So it was the government sponsored UK system that even gave them the potential option of trying an experimental treatment. Believe me, commercial insurance wouldn’t have paid for the experimental treatment.
And don’t go whining about donations or the US helping to pay. Those are options unavailable to McConnell’s poor white rural constituents.
What am I missing? Come on, right wingers out there. Continue to defend your illogical, unethical, unprincipled, fact-free nonsense.
alxzba almost 7 years ago
rest in peace, Charlie. You are in a better place.
running down a dream almost 7 years ago
yep rest easy Charlie .. you need not listen to the narcissists around here.
Uncle Joe Premium Member almost 7 years ago
Charlie’s parents wanted to take Charlie to the US for an experimental treatment offered by a doctor who didn’t examine Charlie in person or even examine all of his charts. The doctors at the hospital in the UK knew that Charlie’s brain & muscles were already too ravaged by his disease for any treatment to work. After finally examining Charlie, the American doctor agreed.
Ramirez & the Republicans want to exploit this tragedy to deny healthcare to American babies who have perfectly treatable health problems. It’s shameful.
NeoconMan almost 7 years ago
The government should have stayed out of the Charlie Gard situation…after it had paid for his treatment, of course.
kurt.zwicky almost 7 years ago
How do you flag Ramirez ??
Sadandconfused9 almost 7 years ago
Well, Mr. Ramirez, you really have everyone really up in an up roar. But what does England’s medical decisions have to do with our own ACA? I seem to have missed the point. That poor child’s medical condition has nothing to do with our medical insurance. It never did. It was always in God’s hands.
DarleenMB Premium Member almost 7 years ago
Amazing that one has to explain to idiots like Ramirez that government managed HEALTH INSURANCE is NOT THE SAME AS SOCIALIZED MEDICINE!
eugene57 almost 7 years ago
Terri Schiavo was politicized and the conservatives were wrong then, too.
Susan6SW Premium Member almost 7 years ago
This cartoon is totally unfair. This little boy was hopelessly debilitated would not live a normal life and actually could not even live a sentient life. To prolong it was hopelessly cruel. As a parent I realize I would fight to keep my child going, but sometimes you have to be realistic, give up and let the little soul go in peace. Those who believe in a heaven should be rejoicing for him now.
"It's the End of the World!!!" Premium Member almost 7 years ago
More outrage over this than the pathetic failures of government-run healthcare in our nation under the auspices of the VA and Indian Health Service.
RAGs almost 7 years ago
Yes, government run health care kept him a live a lot longer than he would have survived otherwise.
RAGs almost 7 years ago
Ruthless Terrier (indeed ruthless), the same initials as “Russia Today” (Russian government run television network). Coincidence?
BillMartin1 almost 7 years ago
Ramirez has it dead right. The $ had been raised for the experimental treatment online long ago. The British ‘death panel’ couldn’t give up control, or the next family with a sick child might want to make their own decisions too.
I’m in Canada, and after 3 years wasted with our socialized health system I got a diagnosis at the Mayo Clinic. No 3 month waits between each Dr. appt. or test: 1 Week covered it all. Instead of 5-10 minute visits with specialists I had a first visit with a neurologist for 1 1/4 hours. I could go on and on. Only Canada, Cuba and N. Korea prevent private health care to compete with gov’t care. Total cost US$10k about 15 yrs ago. Cheap at 3 x that price.
BubbleTape Premium Member almost 7 years ago
The U.S. infant mortality rate is far far worse than the U.K. or other universal care countries. Nice try Mr Ramirez but horribly wrong and ignorant – again.
Nantucket Premium Member almost 7 years ago
The parents who did not have to declare bankruptcy are the face of government run health care.
.Thank you BASLIM for spelling out the entire story.
juanm1026 almost 7 years ago
Ramirez you are using a dead baby to promote your agenda. Disgraceful. You should join the Trump administration. They are looking for people like you.
Durak Premium Member almost 7 years ago
Shame on you.
lbatik almost 7 years ago
So much of this is simply wrong…..
1st: Ramirez is deliberately, shamefully, trying to claim that the baby died because the government denied the baby necessary healthcare, and he is using this to imply that if the US had a national healthcare system like the UK, that things like this would happen.
That’s BS on so many levels.
2nd: no, experimental treatments were not denied to the baby. In fact, the doctors at Great Ormond Street Hospital tried to recruit the doctor who supposedly offered an experimental treatment. The problem was, the treatment wasn’t just “experimental” – it was largely vaporware, and had never been through even animal testing. In fact, there are no treatments which can help this condition, much less cure it.
3rd: the “government” did not deny anyone anything. It was a judge, a member of the independent judiciary, who ruled that further “heroic or experimental measures” to prolong the baby’s life were not in the baby’s best interest, as there was no possible good outcome, and there was some reason to believe that the baby was in constant distress, if not actual pain.
4th: see point the third – this was never about cost, or bureaucracy. It was a ruling made about a child’s welfare and best interests. It may seem perverse that a baby’s “best interest” might be that he be allowed to die — but there are conditions where there is no possible good outcome, only the prolongation of pain.
5th: to misrepresent this tragic death as propaganda to tell people in America that they shouldn’t have a national healthcare system, is utterly disgusting – especially given that under America’s current private system, infant mortality is worse than just about any other industrial nation in the world.
There is more information at https://reaction.life/charlie-gard-facts/ if anyone is interested.
But Ramirez ought to be ashamed. And so should anyone who spreads stupid false understanding of a real tragedy.
johnofaustria almost 7 years ago
Amazing – those prostrate before a compromised medical establishment applaud government telling parents they must kneel to the elites who determine their children’s healthcare. No one questioned the seriousness of Charlie’s condition, we, along with his parents, just questioned the medical elites and government courts’ judgement that disabled people like Charlie have lives not worth living. Read their judgements – that was their case. Stop sneering with labels that protect you from thinking, people