Government Run Healthcare Decides Who Lives Or Dies

Are we willing to cede life and death decisions to the government? What right does the government have to rule against a parent’s wishes that they deem are "not in the child’s best interests?” Why are Democrats in Congress and Illinois celebrating abortion on demand that puts us right up there with the policies in North Korea and China? Dan and Kristen discuss the immorality of single-payer healthcare and the movement away from a society that values the dignity of every human life. 

View full transcript

Proft: Good morning, Dan and Kristen McQueary, in from the Trib Ed Board, in for Amy this morning. And Kristen, you remember the Charlie Gard case in Britain? (McQueary: I do.) So Charlie Gard, for those of you who don't recall, was this terminally ill baby whose parents...he suffered from some genetic disease, Mitochondrial DNA Depletion Syndrome, that left him unable to see, move, hear, swallow, even breathe without life support. His parents wanted to take him to the US for treatment, but the British court, in defense of NICE, the Orwellian-named national health care, the national health care system in Britain, blocked Charlie Gard's parents from taking THEIR SON to the United States. They wouldn't release him, yknow via the state-run hospital, to his parents. McQueary: It wasn't in his best interests, Dan. Proft: *quiet laugh* ...okay. Uhh yeah. McQueary: And he died...and he died, by the way. Because he was not allowed to be released even though there was a physician here in New York who wanted to try this experimental treatment. Proft: And this American doctor from Columbia University actually flew to London to examine him, and provide his recommendation to the court. Part of the problem in terms of this experimental treatment that this Dr. Hirano of Columbia University had developed was the time. Because of the delay in allowing Charlie Gard to take their son to the US to meet with Dr. Hirano, or getting Dr. Hirano out to London, his condition of course deteriorated, because he was facing an existential problem as it was. So, while the "wheels of Justice" in London, such as it was, turned, Charlie Gard's chances diminished, he ultimately died, as you said. So now you have another case... McQueary: And he was taken off life support. They were allowed to remove him from life support even though his parents objected and the doctor was waiting. It wasn't like he died naturally, they actually made the decision, the courts, the government, made the decision, over the objections of his parents. Proft: Important point, because that's a segue to this most recent case. A judge in the UK has ruled that a doctor can take a severely ill child off of life support, over the objections of the child's parents. "Doctors argued that trying to prolong 11-month old Isaiah Haastrup's life should not be continued, because it's..." McQueary: Not in his best interests. Proft: Bingo! "Isaiah was born by C-Section at King's College Hospital after his mother had a ruptured uterus, Isaiah suffered brain damage when he was born, his respiration activity...", or, "had no respiration activity or muscle tone when he was born. The doctors advised Isaiah be taken off life support but his parents, Takeisha Thomas and Lonre Haastrup, objected." The parents held the hospital responsible for their son's condition, didn't want to accept the hospital's advice on the baby's future. The mom, Takeisha Thomas, told the court "When I speak to him, he will respond slowly by opening one eye. I see a child who is injured, he needs love, he needs care, I have it, I can give it. To say it is so poor it is not worth living, that is not right. It's not their decision to make." Well, is it? Are you ready to cede these life or death decisions to the government? Even treatment decisions to the government because...just because we have forestalled the onslaught of Obamacare thanks to President Trump, and the ascension of Republicans in Congress, doesn't mean the battle's over. If you haven't been paying attention for the last, I don't know, say 50 years, just to take a portion of our nation's history, the Cultural Marxist Left does not RELENT. They do not go away because they've been defeated in one election. They will continue to come back, and they will continue to pursue, through the back door, what they can't get through the front door. And that's ultimately a British-style health care system. Don't forget all of the...so many of the perspective 2020 Democratic candidates for President, including "Comrade Bernie", who want to mirror our health-care system after those single-payer systems like Britain's or Canada's, where the government makes these decisions. And oh by the way, in addition to that, you have the quote-unquote "death with dignity", another Orwellian-titled ghoulish movement, that's also already happening in this country. It started in Western Europe, and of course it moved to the Pacific Northwest, and now it's in the Midwest. There's a move in Illinois to expand euthanasia. And so...312-642...er...312-642-5600, Turnkey Dot Pro Answer Line, 64636DA, Turnkey Dot Pro Text Line. Umm...who you with? Court's call, government's call, government-run health care's call, doctor's call, Mom and Dad's call? You want to see euthanasia expand? You want to see the disabled more marginalized? Harvested for organs as is literally what's happening in places like Belgium...and all under the phrase that pays. Huxleyan..."Not in the child's best interests." "Not in the child's best interests." You want what is and isn't in your child's best interests determined by you, the parent? Or the government. That's what this comes down to. McQueary: There are actually quite a few cases of this, just once in a while one will bubble to the surface, and the media will pick up on it, like this latest baby, Isaiah. It actually happens quite often (Proft: Yes.), parents they're...they're given...they get a court ruling that's against their wishes, and I've read a couple of cases where the doctors just immediately, without even giving the parents the chance to say goodbye or anything, start disconnecting life support, taking away feeding tubes...sometimes these children don't even die right away, it can take several days. This latest case with Isaiah, he's 11-months old. His mother is PLEADING in court, saying "He needs care. I HAVE IT. I can give it." They want to take him home. And the courts ruled against their right to do so. And she...you alluded to this...she had a C-Section, she blames the hospital...the baby was fine, it was a perfectly healthy pregnancy. She had something called a ruptured uterus, which is very rare, where during the C-Section the baby slips into the mother's abdomen rather than coming out of the uterus, but so she blames the hospital. And then the courts are expecting her to take the advice of the hospital, who just damaged her precious child? That's a disconnect! Proft: Right! And, we don't know, I'm not...I'm not alleging malpractice, but it seems like it's a possibility. She is certainly indicating that she believes that could be an issue. So yeah, "the people who put my child in this situation", at least from her perspective, "now they get to impose their will on me and my child? No!" I can understand that position. Ralph in Rantoul, you're on Chicago's Morning Answer. Ralph (caller): Good morning. Well, if the government owns the system, the government is gonna own the decisions. That's what the Brits wanted, X-many years ago, that's what Obamacare is very effectively ramming down our throats through the healthcare system. You know, so today it's this baby, yesterday it's the baby that Kris was talking about, tomorrow it's Republicans or anybody from any unprotected class, as defined by those who run the system. Watch out people! Proft: Thanks for the call, Ralph. You know, we live in a world of scarce resources. So you have to make a decision about how resources, and decision-making, is distributed. It can be rationed by those with the monopoly of force in society, or it can be distributed through the give and take of private actors that are governed by transparent laws. That's the choice, and kind of "the big bad insurance companies", and I'm no defender of big corporations generally speaking, including health insurance companies. But there's so much talk and demagoguery about their rationing of services, right, because they have a bottom-line to meet, you don't think the government rations? McQueary: Well, also...I mean, I don't want to connect apples and oranges here, so straighten me out if I am here. But we just also read of the story of the mother who had an amazing recovery after the Las Vegas shooting. And she was on life support, and she wasn't showing signs of recovery, and I THINK I remember hearing that the husband was feeling pressure to "let her go", to disconnect her. And then, lo and behold, he's met in a dream by her saying "Don't do it!", and now she's speaking, she's talking, she's going home, she has a long road of recovery to...she has a long way to go, but imagine...we're talking about children, but this could expand to lots of other areas. Proft: There's no question, and by the way doctors, just like health insurance companies, just like government bureaucrats, are not omniscient. And that's why the operative question is where does decision-making authority reside, legitimately, first and foremost? Now doctors and others, they can help make INFORMED decisions, and they should. But do they take the place, do they stand in for the parent? In loco parentis? No. Unh-uh. Not if you want a free society, they don't. Kurt in Lemont, you're on Chicago's Morning Answer. Kurt (caller): Yeah, thanks for taking my call. I actually used to work for the NHS, years ago. And there were a lot of good things about it, but whenever you have a government-run healthcare system, it's gonna ration care because it has to, to keep costs under control. But I think there needs to be a real discussion about...when does the "Death with Dignity" approach become the "Hurry up and DIE already" approach? Proft: Yes, yes. Thanks for the call, Kurt. Yes. That's exactly right. The discussion is if "Death with dignity" is a euphemism for "Hurry up and DIE already!" "You know, I've already got your organs slated for somebody else." Because that's the kind of stuff that's happening. And you know, the Left is just very cavalier with other people's lives, and some who consider themselves center-right too. "(?) burden. I wouldn't want to be in that position, I wouldn't want that to be my kid, I wouldn't want my kid to suffer!" Fine! But that's not your call for somebody else's kid, somebody else's family. And, you know, it's just remarkable to me. Remarkable to me. We just saw this this week! You saw Senate Democrats CELEBRATING after the defeat of a ban on abortions after 20 weeks in this country. So, "Yay! We're right there with North Korea and China!" Allowing for, and financing through taxpayer funding...err I mean through taxpayer funding of Planned Parenthood, abortions on demand, in places like Illinois, and thanks to Governor Rauner too. That's something to celebrate? WHAT are you celebrating? Are you celebrating a policy so extreme that FRANCE blanches at what we do? That have, France and other socialist countries, that have a 20 week ban because they're actually following the science and even THAT makes them a little queasy, getting past 20 weeks? What is it? McQueary: But they're very quiet about these cases, ya know? (Proft: Of course!) I think they don't even believe that these are real cases, that this is fake news, this is...it's not! This is actually happening, and it's happening a lot more frequently than you might think, and not just with babies but, as the previous caller said, this "Hurry up and die", government gets to decide, this is up to the courts. This is up to the courts? Not the family? And this mother is saying "I want to take him home". And to your listeners, I mean, this is a beautiful 11-month old baby, in his little pajamas, he has a breathing tube on and off..mom wants to take him home, and she's trapped by government. Proft: Because the state owns the kid, you don't. McQueary: *quietly* It's...outrageous. Proft: Jim in Huntley? Jim (caller): Yes, good morning. Many years ago, there was a TV show called The Twilight Zone, Rod Sterling was the producer. They did an episode where, as a progressive society developed, and there was a court panel that could find people obsolete. Proft: Mmhmm. Thanks for the call, Jim. Yeah, life imitating Twilight Zone episodes. Jim in Chicago? Jim in Chicago (Caller): Hi, is that me? (Proft: Yeah, that's you.) Sorry about that! Yeah, I think that another aspect of this is a cultural shift, a..the...and this came up in the assisted suicide case that was before the Supreme Court, this value of the sanctity of life, and having that as the core of what law is all about, and instead shifting to the idea of a utilitarian approach about what a life is worth, and whether it's worth putting in effort, and whether a life is worth living. During the suicide case, there was a group that filed an amicus brief that was called "Not Dead Yet". And it was a group of disabled that were afraid that with assisted suicide, sooner or later the cost of maintaining disabled people were going to factor in to whether they would be able to get treatment and ultimately be allowed to live. Cardinal Bernardin filed a moving amicus brief about, you know, the value of every life, regardless of what stage it was at, regardless of what the health of the person was, once it was human life, it had an absolutely equal value, no matter what the quality of life or age or value or wealth of the person might be. And instead now you have this kind of secular, technocratic European state, and it's unfortunately infected Britain, and it's not just the continent anymore, the Netherlands is the HOME of this kind of thinking, where...where it has become almost purely utilitarian. And I hope, I mean I don't know, but I hope that the grounding in the American Constitution of individual liberty is something that would distinguish the United States from these trends. You mentioned the northwest, and obviously Oregon and other states now have assisted suicide, and it's very troubling. And... Proft: Jim, Jim we gotta go. Thanks for the call and your points, and they're well taken, and they are troubling. And it calls to mind this testimony that was given before Congress late last year, we played on this show, from Frank Stephens, this young man with Down Syndrome, where he addressed the Congressional Committee, and said "I'm a man with Down Syndrome, and my life is worth living. Is there no place for me in society? Is there no place for me?"

Related Content