27 Apr 18
Predictable Argument of Socialists:
Physicians of course, sincerely believe they’re “correct” when forming a diagnosis and subsequent treatment plan for a patient.
Yet, as new signs, symptoms, and test-results emerge, competent and honest physicians sometimes see that they started on a line of diagnosis and treatment that was clearly wrong.
When the foregoing becomes obvious, competent and honest physicians readily acknowledge their error and
immediately revise their approach, often consulting with other physicians in the process.
Indeed, such “changes in course” sometimes take place several times during the diagnosis and treatment process!
Accordingly, competent and honest physicians never flinch when a patient asks about obtaining a second opinion.
Having some doubt about a particular case, either in the accuracy of the initial assessment, treatment plan, or the patient’s poor response to it, is the usual impetus for physicians to seek-out intercollegiate input.
A two-year-old child in the UK and within the UK’s socialized medical system, is currently on-track to die soon from a pernicious neuro-degenerative disease. I’m sure his physicians are expert, and have given his parents an accurate picture of his condition. Treatment elsewhere would probably be futile, and likely to just add to the anguish of child and parents.
None of that is in dispute!
However, UK’s self-protective medical bureaucracy is now pursuing legal means to forcibly prevent the child’s parents from seeking other medical care, even with their own money, care that is outside their national system!
This is where socialists ever display their true colors!
UK doctors may be intimately familiar with the most recent research on this child’s disease, and they may honestly know of no other viable treatment.
But, they can’t possibly know none exists!
And, they are ruthlessly usurping the authority of the child’s parents over his future, however short it may be.
Other countries may not have real treatment either, but what is really behind UK’s socialist medical system’s preventing, under pain of arrest and incarceration, the patient’s family from finding out?
I have to conclude that socialists in the UK’s socialized medical system have some motivation to preserve something they consider more important than this child’s life!
I believe these UK doctors are scared to death!
Physicians and administrators there see the possibility of losing their citizens’ trust, when they are revealed to be lacking in medical judgment. They morbidly fear those parents will find successful treatment elsewhere, and thus make the UK’s socialist medical system look incompetent and less than honest.
In an age of formalized “end-of-life” measures, and desperately wanting to appear to have the capacity to unerringly make perfect judgments about doing so, they run the risk of subsequently being seen as a wretchedly flawed and frigidly detached arm of the state, a typical mendacious, self-protective, self-promoting government bureaucracy that can’t be trusted.
This blatant institutional vanity explains their willingness to put parental authority, and the very life of a child, second to “the good of the state,” which is, loosely translated,
“The good of the party”
This is what Berney and Hillary, as they extol the virtues of socialism, will never tell you!
Freedom is lost when this is tolerated!
Free citizens must possess the personal freedom to make their own mistakes. The “Freedom to Fail” is the most important freedom we enjoy, and as we see, always the first freedom socialists want to take away from us!
The socialist nanny-state, so praised by liberals, cannot possibly even begin to “take care of us,” even when we ask it to try.
Fools who do, are destined for continuous disappointment and regret, a miserable life piteously devoid of promise and opportunity.
Who see through this lie, must work tirelessly to reverse losses of freedom already in place.
“In 1927 an American socialist, Norman Thomas, six-times candidate for president on the Socialist Party ticket, said the American people would never vote for ‘socialism.’ But, he also said that, under the name of ‘liberalism,’ American people will adopt every fragment of the socialist program.”