Wednesday, July 5, 2017

The Tyranny of the State

Charlie Gard:

Yeah, you probably know the name. A young male child, not yet a year old. One who has a likely incurable genetic disease. A child in the care of the State....Socialized Medicine.

A child who has been handed a death sentence by that same State. The State will no longer pay for his medical care. 

On the one hand, this is likely a good decision. Under State care, Charlie will never get better. They have no way to heal him, no way to improve his condition. Likely no one does. The State has chosen not to spend more money trying to save a child they know they cannot save.

That isn't the point.

The point is that the parents haven't given up, and have raised through donations enough money to take their child elsewhere to try other possible treatments. And, if they can do so without cost to the State, they have the right to do so.

Failing that, the parents want their child to die at home, not in a hospital. They have been denied that measure of control as well. The State Knows Better.

However, the State has decided that they cannot do that. That they cannot have their child back, that the parents do not have control over the fate of their child. That the State has chosen Charlie's fate, and the State, with people who (supposedly) know better and who have no interest other than financial can make the decision for the child. They wouldn't allow any transport to other countries for possible experimental treatment that might (maybe, but probably not) save this child. They cannot allow anyone to know that their medical science is inferior to any others, and they must maintain that the STATE is all powerful and has ultimate control over the fate of a child once entrusted to their care.

Their decision is likely the logical one. Desperate measure seldom succeed. But there is no cost to the State for the attempt to save young Charlie Gard's life. no risk for the State, no cost, nothing. Nothing but loss of prestige, and loss of control.

Thus they condemn a dying child to the trash heap.

This only works in a place where the People are disarmed, however. They can do this because the People have no recourse....no way to oppose the State.

If ever there was a reason to oppose Big Government, this is one. 

2 comments:

PeteForester1 said...

I was the recipient of government-run "healthcare" for 21 years; my time in the military. During that time, I was COMPELLED to give a DNA sample. The alternative was discharge from the military. I was COMPELLED to receive a flu shot every year, or, again, face discharge. I very rarely got a cold, and NEVER got the flu. I did, however, get sick for days EVERY TIME I got the "vaccine." When I needed allergy medication, I received Zyrtec, which worked great, only to be told a few months down the line that the government wasn't going to prescribe Zyrtec anymore. I was given a different med, which didn't work at all. Upon letting the "doctor" know this, I was basically told "Sucks to be you." My wife had gallbladder surgery in a military hospital. The surgeon removed it through an eight-inch incision, long after "the real world" had abandoned that method of removal in favor of a much less invasive, less scarring method. One of our children was born in a military hospital as well. MOMENTS after delivery, the "doctor" made her get out of the bed she was in, walk about 25 feet, and get into another bed, all the while, blood POURING from her. I I I can hear it splashing on the deck as if it had happened yesterday.

The list goes on and on. These incidents didn't happen at Podunk, 3rd World hospitals. Among the locations were Letterman Army Medical Center at the Presidio in San Francisco, and the medical center at Travis AFB in Fairfield CA. These were BIG hospitals on BIG bases.

Folks, government-run healthcare is the VERY LAST thing you want! If there is something to "resist," this is it!

Dan O. said...

Agree wholeheartedly! The story is disgusting at the very least.