A note on Charlie Gard and euthanasia

The Euro state managed to delay treatment just long enough that it would not have done any good. This case is a warning. Public health care systems are much better at providing jobs for mediocrities than they are at promoting medical advances.

It will be much easier for them to provide our own doctors with a euthanasia kit than with research funds, and we can count on traditional legacy media to promote that and make euthanasia doctors into heroes.

From Derek Hunter:

No, part of the reason the UK couldn’t let Charlie have a chance at life was because if they let him have one, others would want one too. And people would start to wonder why they aren’t getting the latest and greatest medicine on the planet. They might start demanding more from a government unwilling to give it to them. Which is the problem with single-payer health care – you are a ward of the state, not an individual.

The individuals in these countries are irrelevant, disposable, unless they’re rich, politically powerful or royalty. It’s the collective that matters. If members of the collective start to question why they have to wait months for a routine procedure when the United States can deliver it nearly on demand, or why some procedures simply aren’t available to them, well, that would lead to trouble.

When everyone has to wait, no one is aware that they’re waiting, and when everyone’s care is rationed…you get the idea.More.

But then, Justin’s tears are enough for you, right?

Note: With rare diseases like Charlie’s, all treatments are experimental at first. All medical treatment, including the first vaccinations, started out experimental.

See also: Involuntary euthanasia push: Charlie Gard safe till July 25