“The court declared that the child should die rather than allow his parents to pursue privately-funded medical care in the United States.”
“Both parents are in agreement in wishing to pursue treatment in the US. But, it appears that the state is acting on its own initiative here and demanding the child be left to die because some government-employed doctors — none of whom are related to the child — wish it.”
“Nor do the parents seek to continue using any of the hospital’s tax-funded resources. They merely wish to pursue treatment elsewhere.”
They’ve already raised the £1.3m to pay for the experimental treatment in the US.
“The state says no.”
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-40423371
Aside from the obvious rationing, this case also provides insight into how medical innovation is impeded by government managed healthcare .. When government controls the limited healthcare supply it won’t allow or pay for experimental treatments ..
Present day experimental treatments, once perfected in practice, become future standard procedures ..
For instance, the coronary artery bypass surgery was an experimental treatment in 1960 when it was first performed .. Today it is a standard procedure .. If government had refused to allow or pay for the experimental procedure in 1960 we would today have a much higher cardiac death and mortality rate ..
I think you get the idea ..
Government Medicine: Court Declares Child Should Die Rather Than Receive Privately-Funded Health Care
In a government-controlled healthcare system, the state determines who can receive treatment and when. This has long been admitted.
https://mises.org/blog/government-medicine-court-declares-child-should-die-rather-receive-privately-funded-health-care
^
