The Original Gay Porn Community - Free Gay Movies and Photos, Gay Porn Site Reviews and Adult Gay Forums

  • Welcome To Just Us Boys - The World's Largest Gay Message Board Community

    In order to comply with recent US Supreme Court rulings regarding adult content, we will be making changes in the future to require that you log into your account to view adult content on the site.
    If you do not have an account, please register.
    REGISTER HERE - 100% FREE / We Will Never Sell Your Info

    To register, turn off your VPN; you can re-enable the VPN after registration. You must maintain an active email address on your account: disposable email addresses cannot be used to register.

  • Hi Guest - Did you know?
    Hot Topics is a Safe for Work (SFW) forum.

What should happen to baby Charlie Gard?

It's not just his opinion. It's that he floods the CE&P forum with it and now he's dragging it into this forum and into this thread where it simply does not belong. If you don't frequent CE&P, you won't understand, but he surely does.

He does tend to come off with a "No expense but for mine" mentality, doesn't he. Quality of life isn't considered by a lot of people. Money, however...

Considering the usa's lack of affordable basic healthcare (let alone experimental treatment) I'm not at all surprised it's come up. Would've eventually been mentioned sooner or later by someone other than Ben. The baby isn't a unique case, pretty sure there's thousands of people here who could possibly benefit from experimental treatments. Let alone having basic healthcare, which is currently a 'hot button' issue with the Rich + the Deluded Poor vs ....everyone else and basic economics.

I just can't figure out why they thought America was the place to go when a mere million and change would never cover the cost. They'd still be screwed, because if you don't have the money here, you can forget about treatment of any kind.
 
We all thought that yesterday's decision by the parents that no more could be done meant the end of this circus
However, it continues
The parents are now going back to court to ask for the child to be allowed to be taken home to die
I hope the court refuses
My reason is because I believe that, given how the parents are so obviously unable to let him go, they will refuse to turn off life support and will have, in effect, an artifically living body for months
For their own sanity the responsibility HAS to be taken away from them
The court should refuse because the baby is being fed morphine to combat pain and, in this country, morphine is a Class A controlled drug and not allowed ot be dispensed in liquid form anywhere apart from hospitals and registered hospices/care homes
 
^Indeed. i can imagine that this will affect all who cared for baby Charlie, for a long time to come.
 
My friends who are my age have been caretaking for a baby that was born to a drug infected heroin addict who had AIDS..and they have had to take him in and watch carefully and help with the withdrawal....

...and I am sooooooooooooooooooooooooo in love with this little guy. He is so damn sweet and cute as hell. I would probably die for him if it came to that....but I could never make the decision these parents had to make...I would need someone else to do it for me and then sedate me for a few years so I didn't have to face it.

I can find no fault with them.
 
I could never make the decision these parents had to make...I would need someone else to do it for me and then sedate me for a few years so I didn't have to face it.

I can find no fault with them.

And that is the crux of this whole sorry saga
Parents are often way too emotionally involved to make the best decisions for their children in cases like this
An objective authority figure should make the decision
In this case I don't think they should have been allowed to drag it on for so long. It will have been heartbreaking for them anyway
And now, because of the length of time it took, they will be 100 times more heartbroken than if the decision had been taken out of their hands in March
The child has been suffering unnecessarily for about 10 months, £ millions of legal fees have been wasted by the hospital and the parents are left raumatised
 
Will you just mind your own business and stop bringing your crap into this forum, too?

I agree with you GSDX there are idiots in the states have no idea that we pay about $9 for a prescription even if the 30 pills cost hundred of dollars a piece. The one you responded too does not believe in Obama care which is as close as the states will ever get to national health. As to The Baby the family has brought him to a Hospice where how he dies is being looked at it privately
 
And that is the crux of this whole sorry saga
Parents are often way too emotionally involved to make the best decisions for their children in cases like this
An objective authority figure should make the decision
In this case I don't think they should have been allowed to drag it on for so long. It will have been heartbreaking for them anyway
And now, because of the length of time it took, they will be 100 times more heartbroken than if the decision had been taken out of their hands in March
The child has been suffering unnecessarily for about 10 months, £ millions of legal fees have been wasted by the hospital and the parents are left raumatised

I see that you are single, but for the sake of argument, lets say you had a husband. One day you become seriously and potentially irreversibly ill. There is little hope for your survival long term. The state steps in and tells your husband he is too emotionally involved to know what is right for you. Your husband, who knows you best and loves you most, no longer is allowed to make end of life decisions. Loved ones makes these difficult and painful decisions every single day without outside controls. Many of us have had to do that for our parents. Some (maybe even someone at JUB) has had to make that decision for a spouse or mate. I've seen where parents have had to make that decision for a child. It's a heart wrenching decision to have to make, but they do it. And sometimes they just need more time than a detached stranger would need.
 
I see that you are single, but for the sake of argument, lets say you had a husband. One day you become seriously and potentially irreversibly ill. There is little hope for your survival long term. The state steps in and tells your husband he is too emotionally involved to know what is right for you. Your husband, who knows you best and loves you most, no longer is allowed to make end of life decisions. Loved ones makes these difficult and painful decisions every single day without outside controls.

I agree but in this case it was abundantly clear that the parents were not capable of making a rational decision.
It is completely understandable. This was their first child

My closest friend knows that should it come to it and I am unlikely to recover then I would want him to pull the plug. We have discussed this and I am confident he will do as I ask without drawing the process out
There is always a point where further medical intervention has to purpose except to prolong the inevitable. Especailly where children are concerned parents are rarely the best people to judge when that is. They are biologically wired to go above and beyond when it cmes to protecting their offspring.
 
It's not just his opinion. It's that he floods the CE&P forum with it and now he's dragging it into this forum and into this thread where it simply does not belong. If you don't frequent CE&P, you won't understand, but he surely does.

He's entitled to his opinion, however different from ours. And in this case, in my humble opinion, he said all there was to say in post #4. All we have added is just nuance.
 
...how familiar are you with medical cost vs human compassion vs disability itself? It isn't that you don't have a point lurking way down deep in that paragraph about governmental greed & medical access, (though I believe you're outright wrong on whether there's a medical miracle chance for that kid - the House always wins, one way or another) - it's that I think you're wearing one hell of a pair of rose-tinted wraparounds if you think the usa's population can afford to donate untold millions for a single individual in the current clime when most haven't health insurance themselves as the pleas never cease or slow.


I'm extremely well aware of medical costs in the US. I'm a citizen and I've had 18 surgeries. The last one being May 8th of this year. I worked as a paramedic for 15 years, still work in the medical field and have a pretty sound medical knowledge. Did I think the treatment was going to suddenly turn him into a "normal" child? Of course not. I'm very well aware of his prognosis. I don't know exactly how much had been donated but I believe it was around 2 million dollars. That's more than enough to have brought him to the US and a fair amount of time in the hospital. I'd be willing to bet the hospital would have donated most if not all of his care. Many hospitals, especially childrens facilities will accept what insurance will pay and write the rest off. I had a few points in my paragraph. Yes, the government wastes billions instead of actually doing something meaningful with it. Second, the hospital and government were putting up unnecessary road blocks in allowing the parents to bring him to the US for further care. The hospital and doctors were willing to accept him as a patient. They didn't say we need three million dollars upfront before we'll accept him. The US taxpayer would not have been on the hook for his medical costs. He wasn't a US citizen and unlike the billions that a shelled out for illegals that get food stamps, welfare and medical assistance he wasn't eligible for those services. Finally, as a parent I will do ANYTHING for my kids, ANYTHING. Just like these parents were trying to do for their child. They simply wanted to give him a chance. Just because he would have needed long term care, like many already do, doesn't mean he shouldn't have been given a chance. What he was given was a guaranteed death sentence. It's a mute point as the government has gotten it's wish and the child has died. btw there had to be much more involved in your foot because the pinning of a broken foot is usually done on an outpatient basis much less require 2 weeks in the hospital and cost 200k. If you had insurance, you and they got ripped off or there was a lot more involved in your case. I'm not getting into a back and forth either. The child is dead and I don't think you understood exactly what I was trying to say.

Steven.
 
I'm extremely well aware of medical costs in the US. I'm a citizen and I've had 18 surgeries. The last one being May 8th of this year. I worked as a paramedic for 15 years, still work in the medical field and have a pretty sound medical knowledge. Did I think the treatment was going to suddenly turn him into a "normal" child? Of course not. I'm very well aware of his prognosis. I don't know exactly how much had been donated but I believe it was around 2 million dollars. That's more than enough to have brought him to the US and a fair amount of time in the hospital. I'd be willing to bet the hospital would have donated most if not all of his care. Many hospitals, especially childrens facilities will accept what insurance will pay and write the rest off. I had a few points in my paragraph. Yes, the government wastes billions instead of actually doing something meaningful with it. Second, the hospital and government were putting up unnecessary road blocks in allowing the parents to bring him to the US for further care. The hospital and doctors were willing to accept him as a patient. They didn't say we need three million dollars upfront before we'll accept him. The US taxpayer would not have been on the hook for his medical costs. He wasn't a US citizen and unlike the billions that a shelled out for illegals that get food stamps, welfare and medical assistance he wasn't eligible for those services. Finally, as a parent I will do ANYTHING for my kids, ANYTHING. Just like these parents were trying to do for their child. They simply wanted to give him a chance. Just because he would have needed long term care, like many already do, doesn't mean he shouldn't have been given a chance. What he was given was a guaranteed death sentence. It's a mute point as the government has gotten it's wish and the child has died. btw there had to be much more involved in your foot because the pinning of a broken foot is usually done on an outpatient basis much less require 2 weeks in the hospital and cost 200k. If you had insurance, you and they got ripped off or there was a lot more involved in your case. I'm not getting into a back and forth either. The child is dead and I don't think you understood exactly what I was trying to say.

Steven.


You can't be much of a paramedic if you think you're a foot doctor instead - they're very different jobs. Generally speaking, you either know a lot about one job or very little about either. If you've had 18 surgeries you know no one volunteers that they'll pay the bill for you, let alone when you're an infant with that kind of medical history.

I almost feel bad pointing this out, but there's more than one kind of bone break, to further limit what seems to be an extensive gulf in your knowledge - and that some types of break are a fucking pain in the ass due to location and the previous disabilities preemies are are wont to have. To be even plainer, I got a rare break that's usually seen as 'athletically motivated' by standing up and then collapsing with every ounce of weight on a foot that rolled because I didn't realize the entire leg had gone numb again when I tried to walk. That's what you consider an expensive break, particularly when the break still looks like it's trying to push through the skin after your foot has been swollen for two weeks.

And before your smart ass says "you should've gone to the hospital earlier" I'll point out a few minutes ago you were under the impression that 'healing all broken bones in the foot is simple' is a belief that directly causes one to stay the fuck home in the hope that that belief is true when it turns out that in reality it's yet another Everyman Solution you don't have the good fortune to partake of.

As for your idea of how medical costs work, I've had it from the other end, being born considerably too early while medical insurers washed their collective hands. So no, I don't believe it would've magically 'worked itself out'- not been my experience, certainly.
 
Finally, as a parent I will do ANYTHING for my kids, ANYTHING. Just like these parents were trying to do for their child. They simply wanted to give him a chance. Just because he would have needed long term care, like many already do, doesn't mean he shouldn't have been given a chance. What he was given was a guaranteed death sentence.

Thankyou for this observation, and in particular the last part, because I think it's been largely been overlooked and brushed aside in this thread as if it were of no consequence. Morality is not just for the religious, and ethics are not just for the medical profession.

The parents shouldn't even have had to go the U.S. - we have private health care available right here in the U.K. which should have been an available option for them.

But this is the whole point - the parents were refused ANY option, and the hospital effectively took legal action to take away EVERY right they had as parents. And all for the sake of seeking death.

I read a few Wiki articles on the subject of euthanasia, as this is clearly where the doctors and judges are determined to take the United Kingdom, and it is clearly the direction that we are heading.

It seems that the Netherlands are the leading proponents of euthanasia. The figures would seem to suggest that currently, every year, over 5,000 people are euthanized by their choice in Dutch clinics. I've no idea how broad they have made their medical qualification for this, but I find the whole process disturbing. I feel that all this is just normalising suicide, to the point that one would feel pressured or obliged to end one's life if others are doing the same. I'm quite sure the Dutch medical authorities would overrule the parents of very critically ill children like Charlie Gard too.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthanasia_in_the_Netherlands

The number of official cases of euthanasia in the Netherlands rose 10% during 2016 to 6,091. Euthanasia now accounts for 4% of total deaths in the Netherlands according to a report in the Dutch News.

Apparently, the principles and ideals for where ending the life of children are involved are set out in the so-called Groningen Protocol, named after a city in the Netherlands. It details the guidelines for not overstepping the bounds into legal prosecution.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groningen_Protocol

Want to know the irony?

Take a look at rule number 2 for where cases involve a child under the age of 1 year old:

For the Dutch public prosecutor, the termination of a child's life (under age 1) is acceptable if 4 requirements were properly fulfilled:

1. The presence of hopeless and unbearable suffering
2. The consent of the parents to termination of life
3. Medical consultation having taken place
4. Careful execution of the termination

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthanasia_and_the_slippery_slope
 
.....I mean, with 18 surgeries under your belt, you've gotta be aware Medicaid requires documentation of the mri and specialist signature kind. You can't just charge Medicaid/Medicare and find 'em smiling sunnily willing to hand over a check.

And apropos of everything, do I detect a sneer when you're referring to some people as 'illegals who qualify', because that's referring to nothing I posted about the working poor not having the money to donate to the parents' GoFundMe page. So where'd that come from?
 
The parents shouldn't even have had to go the U.S. - we have private health care available right here in the U.K. which should have been an available option for them.

I was under the impression there were hospital personnel/specialists that refused to work as well because they considered it prolonging agony. I know they say 'you get what you pay for.' but you can't always find somebody to pay. Everyone else also gets to follow their ethical code, not just the parents.

I'm not touching the Netherlands trend with a 9.5 ft pole tho, it's a bit ....suspicious.
 
The whole point was they were interested in "experimental treatment", not regular care that could be found anywhere, or even a "specialist". They wanted something so new that it hasn't even been completely tested yet. That stuff does NOT come cheap, as the monies collected fund continued research and testing. They would have had to come to the the US rather than had the "specialists" come to them as any equipment needed would likely not be available anywhere but where the research into the procedure was being done.
 
You can't be much of a paramedic if you think you're a foot doctor instead - they're very different jobs. Generally speaking, you either know a lot about one job or very little about either.

For the record, that isn't a slight. It's a literal thing I noticed regarding generalized fields (healthcare as a for-instance) vs specialities in those fields. People have a nasty habit of assuming competence in one field translates to bare bones basics in all of them when it most definitely does not. I think you're assuming you know about feet because according to a paramedic's job description, "keeping someone from further immediate damage" is when the paramedics are generally called in. You'll notice one assumption doesn't translate in a logical manner to the other. That's because people aren't particularly logical past "fire burns" and "can't breath water.".

Paramedic isn't a job description that's real concerned with long term improvement past the obvious 'halt damage and/or keep alive', all of which require, shall we say, a personal touch, so I'm surprised you feel qualified to judge severity of bone breakage across the Internet with no mri in sight, not even a brief personal history toss up before you opined. At least when I guess I poke around first. Knowing humanity's peccadillos is useless unless you try to curb the errors they tend to cause, simply knowing they exist doesn't negate the behavioral tendency without preventative steps being taken.
 
...well, technically I suppose it'd be considered 'internally logically consistent considering facts 'known'', which is an unfortunate matter because 'facts known' are comprised of an accumulative history of a first person point of life interpretation + generalizations of specific, if not actually-proven-to-be-factual knowledge given by a group of people. Not the same thing as being externally factually consistent tho.

Suppose I could just shorten it to "Lizard brain's used often, yo. Mashes up in weird ways".

Good luck doing damage control when as a species we can't seem to remember a little knowledge doesn't go very far at all and that the knowledge itself may be suspect.
 
The whole point was they were interested in "experimental treatment", not regular care that could be found anywhere, or even a "specialist". They wanted something so new that it hasn't even been completely tested yet.

The experimental treatment had NEVER been tried on humans, only mice
 
Back
Top