Charlie Gard, RIP: Was he an exceptional case? Probably. Could you or a cherished family member become an exceptional case? Absolutely. Could Charlie’s plight happen to you here in the U.S.? Once your government successfully clamps its gnarled paws entirely around the neck of health care, you better believe it.
Remember Terri Schiavo, Property of Her Husband?
She was that unfortunate woman whose husband (probably) tried to murder her but failed. Instead, he (probably) caused her such trauma, during and after his (probable) homicide attempt, that she could no longer function as a self-guided, autonomous person, at least not until she received grievously belated therapy. They claimed she was a vegetable, unconscious and unable to live without some life support. “They” were some medical experts, with perplexingly queer motivations, and the courts. They wanted her dead. No joke. They didn’t just want her off their hands, they wanted her off the planet.
Although the internet only disgorges other telling videos now, I’m wondering, did you ever see the video footage of Terri responding to a visit from her mother? According to those who actually loved her, her visible joy, her open eyes, her jerky movements, her grunts of excitement at the sight of her mom was typical. That’s why they recorded it for the world to see.
If only it would. Terri was severely incapacitated, but she was no vegetable. No longer would she be able to cook a meal, drive a car or earn a paycheck, but she was alive and responsive to the best of her body’s ability. When you see her react to her mother, the human heart breaks knowing what they did to her.
The courts decided, per Mr. Schiavo’s insistent plea, that the state and its functionaries in the care facility (I use that term quite loosely) should accomplish in 2005 what Mr. Schiavo (probably) tried to do in 1990. Refusing to release her to the private care of her parents — who desperately wanted to take her home and truly care for her — instead, they commanded that she be starved and dehydrated to an agonizing death so that Mr. Schiavo could get on with his life.
Charlie Gard, Property of the Queen of England
Fast forward to 2017. With decades of similar exercise under their belt, British administrators and practitioners of single-payer healthcare recently Schiavoed little Charlie Gard. Absent a government by, for and of the people, they probably had a legal right (but certainly not lawful). Long have the inhabitants of Great Britain been subjects (read property) of the reigning king or queen. Long have they agreed to be used and disposed of as such.
Poor Charlie’s DNA went haywire with a very rare and fatal disease. In all of England, no effective treatment was known. In all of England, little, if any, money is spent attempting to further the noble science of medicine when so much is already spent bandaging boo-boos without charge to the wounded. However, in the U.S.A., an experimental treatment has been researched, and those medical scientists, blessed with the rapidly-vanishing vestiges of a free-market — and a heart — yearned to see if their work could help Charlie Gard.
But in a country where the people belong to the Queen and her various bureacracies, not to themselves or, as children, to their parents, permission to take Charlie to America was needed and formally denied. Utilizing the godsend of the internet, Charlie’s parents had even raised enough money to essentially buy him from the state and take him off their budget-strapped hands. If treated soon enough, maybe Charlie stood a chance.
Rather than acknowledge the sense and humanity of it, the medical “experts” vehemently rejected all efforts to save Charlie. Forcing his parents to sue for his release, the months it took for the state to vanquish them were enough for little Charlie’s disease to advance past the point of no return. This was no accident.
Why in the world wouldn’t the British system allow the parents to take him to New York at their own expense? Why? Could it have anything to do with the fact that universal healthcare establishments could hardly care less if he lived or died? Yes, there’s that, but there must be more to it.
If mere indifference were the true root of their barbaric decision, why refuse to release Charlie? What would they care? They could simply have given his parents the boot at the airport, saying, “Get out, and never bring him back.”
Once you take off your rose-colored glasses, it looks clearly as though government healthcare apparatchiks, those who don’t practice medicine but apportion the public funds for it, want you to know who’s boss. You Brits aren’t the boss, and don’t you forget it. Perhaps the British overlords felt the Gards were encouraging a tiny but intolerable bit of social amnesia.
Didn’t they deny Charlie a shot at life for no other reason than to discourage future supplicants of medical freedom? Or any kind of freedom? Did they not want to broadcast that chattel have no rights, neither over themselves or their calves? Did they not also proclaim that human life is disposable according to the tastes of other, more worthy human life forms? Sure looks that way to me. If there’s another explanation, please enlighten me.
Now that enough people in this once-great country west of the Atlantic want the same type of top-down medical rationing here, you can expect many more Terri Schiavo and Charlie Gard decisions to sprout like demonic mushroomss all over the land.
Moreover, you can expect all advancements in scientific understanding of diseases and how to treat them to peter out, too. Why allow expensive research to lead to expensive treatments for which the cows will surely clamor? Such things belong only to the ranchers and their cattle dogs, not the meat/milk herd or, least of all, to children whom the state already pays to eradicate before they’re even born.
Rather than retreating to free-markets where you’d at least have a shot of true and compassionate care from specialists, even if you’re just another working stiff and not one of the annointed, your government wants to take title to you and your children through the healthcare system for which so many of their subjects whine.
Somehow, the moaning ones really think under-paid staff with overwhelmed schedules, directed by government bean counters, will result in their receiving adequate treatment when they truly need it. When facing a terrible disease, or their daughters accidentally survive their husbands’ (probable) attempts to kill them, they’ll think to themselves, “Surely, the good doctors will do their best for me and mine.” But they deceive themselves.
When the true, underlying sentiment, if they would speak honestly, is, “Woo-hoo! I don’t have to pay for this!” they’ll get exactly the compassion and care that Terri and Charlie got.