Disagree on many fronts:
[i] otiose rhetoric: “death” is what National Health Systems do, day in, day out. Let me assure you, there are very few healthy people in those hospitals. Typically as far as death goes. it’s the avoidance, delay or management thereof, and normally to the good of all, the personal and the greater group. Noone is ever going to agree on all the complex be outcomes, but without a basic framework that functions, I assert everyone who falls ill will agree the outcomes are worse.
[ii] practicalities: It is a fundamental freedom to be wrong, and few could argue against that basic right. But in some moral frameworks isn’t it a classic argument that the freedom to be wrong with someone else’s money is not protected?
[iii] arguing from the highly specific to the highly general. The highly complex and highly infrequent circumstance arising from the unfortunate genetic makeup of that child simply cannot be used to argue for or against an generalised approach as it fails the test of a good decision making process on many fronts.
Say what we like, the NHS runs now and has run in the past and did deliver tens of millions upon tens of millions of extra, healthier years to the citizens of the UK. It achieved this through complex balancing acts of known facts, unknowns, preventative medicine, existing law and yes, some basic principles.
I simply don’t think it’s likely that an appeal to emotion and rallying to a single principle can have that much to say about how we can continue to improve the ability of our civilisation to engender a healthy society.
See also the heart-rending circumstances
Frequently asked questions about the Charlie Gard court case
Great Ormond Street Hospital has been contacted by many people who share our concern for Charlie, and his parents, and…
“Before we start pining after the nationalized healthcare systems found in countries like the UK and Canada, we need to think long and hard about whether we can accept that part.”
May I point out in what is intended to be helpful gesture: That’s a statement that could legitimately irritate people who have experience of both. My two pennies?
I recommend a taking a long hard look at the health outcomes for the wealthy nations (and some less wealthy) and then take a long hard look at how defensible you really think that statement is.