04-18-2018 10:16:00 AM -0700
04-16-2018 01:32:51 PM -0700
04-16-2018 09:59:36 AM -0700
04-12-2018 09:53:41 AM -0700
04-10-2018 11:19:03 AM -0700
It looks like you've previously blocked notifications. If you'd like to receive them, please update your browser permissions.
Desktop Notifications are  | 
Get instant alerts on your desktop.
Turn on desktop notifications?
Remind me later.


Stretch, grab a late afternoon cup of caffeine and get caught up on the most important news of the day with our Coffee Break newsletter. These are the stories that will fill you in on the world that's spinning outside of your office window - at the moment that you get a chance to take a breath.
Sign up now to save time and stay informed!

British Courts Again Rule Against Parents Trying to Save Gravely Ill Child

The horror of last summer's Charlie Gard story apparently wasn't an exception in the world of British socialized medicine:

CBS News reports that 23-month-old Alfie Evans's parents have been fighting a "a protracted legal fight with Alder Hey Children's Hospital" regarding their son's treatment.

Just as in the Charlie Gard case, Alfie's parents wanted to take him out of England to try alternative treatment. And, just as in the Gard case, the British courts have decided that they and the hospital knew better than the child's parents.

The powers that be decided that the steps the desperate parents want to take would be "wrong and pointless."

The article says that, "Under British law, it is common for courts to intervene when parents and doctors disagree on the treatment of a child. That applies to cases where parents have an alternative point of view, including from religious beliefs."

Free people in a supposedly free country are having their children held captive by medical personnel with the backing of some of the highest courts in the country.

This is the single-payer, socialized system that Democrats are currently championing in Washington.

From a parental viewpoint, this aspect of socialized medicine is a horror story, not something to be desired.

There is no sound argument to be made for a non-totalitarian society refusing the right of parents who have the wherewithal to seek whatever kind of medical treatment they want for their sick children, whenever, and wherever they want.

Most people would probably agree that a doctor certainly has the right, and even a duty, to inform parents that there is no further treatment for a sick child, if that is what he or she truly believes.

Free people, however, should always have the right to exhaust means and options to save loved ones, especially their children.