I first read about this on social media and then it was on the news. The story of Charlie Gard. What a sad and tragic story that is. The final chapter has yet to be written and I'm hoping for a miracle ending. I did see where the Pope and Trump have gotten involved. As I was reading about this on social media I did read some of the comments. I was taken aback by some of those comments as they related to Trump. Many were saying that Trump was just using this child as some sort of political pawn, that he didn't care one bit about that child and on and on with vile diatribes. I understand you hate the man and you are entitled to that and your opinions. The question I presented in my comment was, If a person is moved to perform a charitable act, does the motivation change the value of the act ?
My thinking is to whomever received the benefit of that charity it certainly wouldn't matter. To the person performing the act as long as the required result is achieved I wouldn't think that it would matter either. Even if that person has nefarious intentions, as many of those people writing their comments felt Trump has, does that negate the validity of the act ? I would have to say only if the act later proves to cause harm. Then the question is, should we look a gift horse in the mouth ? Well that depends upon the horse now doesn't it ? We are told to not do that however, in fact, we are taught that is being prejudicial ! Oh, there's an inconvenient truth. We do judge people and their character based on our perceptions and their past actions. You're not supposed to do that. Isn't that what the narrative is ? It doesn't matter if we are talking about an individual or a group in that regard. We shouldn't judge.
This situation with Charlie Gard has me scratching my head. I fail to see why the British government will not allow this baby to come to America. No one is asking that government to pay for any of that. As near as I can tell this decision is based in bureaucracy. Britain has socialized medicine. This system has decided that Charlie Gard has a terminal illness. He will die and they just aren't going to spend any more money trying to save him. Nothing personal, it is just a business decision. The government says they will " pull the plug " regardless. Okay but why deny this child transport to America to at least give it a chance ? What has the government to lose in all of this ? Well not to be prejudicial but I can only think of one reason. If they relent on this case wouldn't that set a precedent ? The precedent would establish that the government doesn't get to choice who lives and dies. At least that is the way I see it. Britain is obviously saying, no need to throw good money after bad !
I hear many in this country wanting the same medical benefits that people receive in England and other foreign nations. Is this what you really want ? Socialized medicine does lead to just this situation. Well it is true that socialized medicine is not a charity, the people pay for it. If this is going to be the result, for me, the price is much too high. The problem is if you leave the decision to the individual as to who receives what treatment, and how much, that treatment will be unlimited. Left to the government, to bureaucracy, the result is Charlie Gard. So we are left with a big question, what is the cost of charity ? How much are you willing to pay ? Someone has to pay you know. Should it be Charlie Gard ?
My thinking is to whomever received the benefit of that charity it certainly wouldn't matter. To the person performing the act as long as the required result is achieved I wouldn't think that it would matter either. Even if that person has nefarious intentions, as many of those people writing their comments felt Trump has, does that negate the validity of the act ? I would have to say only if the act later proves to cause harm. Then the question is, should we look a gift horse in the mouth ? Well that depends upon the horse now doesn't it ? We are told to not do that however, in fact, we are taught that is being prejudicial ! Oh, there's an inconvenient truth. We do judge people and their character based on our perceptions and their past actions. You're not supposed to do that. Isn't that what the narrative is ? It doesn't matter if we are talking about an individual or a group in that regard. We shouldn't judge.
This situation with Charlie Gard has me scratching my head. I fail to see why the British government will not allow this baby to come to America. No one is asking that government to pay for any of that. As near as I can tell this decision is based in bureaucracy. Britain has socialized medicine. This system has decided that Charlie Gard has a terminal illness. He will die and they just aren't going to spend any more money trying to save him. Nothing personal, it is just a business decision. The government says they will " pull the plug " regardless. Okay but why deny this child transport to America to at least give it a chance ? What has the government to lose in all of this ? Well not to be prejudicial but I can only think of one reason. If they relent on this case wouldn't that set a precedent ? The precedent would establish that the government doesn't get to choice who lives and dies. At least that is the way I see it. Britain is obviously saying, no need to throw good money after bad !
I hear many in this country wanting the same medical benefits that people receive in England and other foreign nations. Is this what you really want ? Socialized medicine does lead to just this situation. Well it is true that socialized medicine is not a charity, the people pay for it. If this is going to be the result, for me, the price is much too high. The problem is if you leave the decision to the individual as to who receives what treatment, and how much, that treatment will be unlimited. Left to the government, to bureaucracy, the result is Charlie Gard. So we are left with a big question, what is the cost of charity ? How much are you willing to pay ? Someone has to pay you know. Should it be Charlie Gard ?
No comments:
Post a Comment