Goodbye, Charlie

File this under “She told you so”:

Remember when Mrs. Palin said she didn’t want some death panel deciding whether her son lives or dies? (Trig was born with a genetic condition as well … who gets to decide whether his quality of life is sufficient to fight for?) she was derided and laughed at. Oh, that dumb hick! (how non-judgmental and tolerant!). The words “death panel” do not appear anywhere in the document! Ha ha! Ho ho! (Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon … where did I read that? Hmmm.)

That would never happen, they said. You’re just fear-mongering. LIES!

So in one of their most vaunted examples of Medical Utopia™, exactly what Mrs. Palin was talking about actually happens, the response is “Stop talking about it.” “Shut Up!”

As Mr. Klavan pointed out years ago, “Shut Up” is typically the central thesis of their argument when anyone argues back.

It’s all they have. And they know it.

And through it all, it was almost lost that what they’re really exposing here — when you read between the lines — is not so much that they thought Mrs. Palin was wrong. No.

It’s that they were OK with the death panels from the beginning.

Of course they were. Were it One Of Them, the outcry would be loud and furious. But Those Other People? Screw ’em. One more carbon footprint erased.


  1. McG »

    28 July 2017 · 9:06 am

    It’s also why they hate the Second Amendment.

  2. Andrew King »

    28 July 2017 · 11:02 am

    I’d like to disagree but somebody else just disagreed better. And, before anybody accuses me of knee-jerk bias, this wasn’t some bleeding-heart liberal or star-struck socialist, but Melanie Philips, one of our most hawkish, right-wing commentators:

    “But this case had absolutely nothing to do with the state or the government. This was not Charlie’s parents v the state. This was Charlie’s parents v the medical profession, a conflict in which the courts were brought in as the dispassionate arbiter in the best interests above all of the sick child.

    This was another thing the American commentators seemed incapable of grasping. In the US, the courts are highly politicised with judicial figures appointed by the state. But in Britain the courts are truly independent, representing law and justice. The state does not tell the British courts what to do; the British courts in fact hold the state to account. So the idea that the courts were enforcing state diktat in this case was totally ridiculous.

    Nor had this anything to do with “socialised medicine” or the NHS system. This was purely a case where doctors were making decisions absolutely in line with medical ethics, which hold that causing a patient any pain or distress from treatment is only permissible if there is clear benefit to the patient from that treatment. In this case, there was not….

    … write a great deal about the ideological bullying of the left, the lies published by left-wing media and the inhumanity and irrationality of so much allegedly progressive thinking. But I have never witnessed such concentrated ignorance, arrogance, stupidity and unthinking cruelty as has been displayed by the American political right over the tragic case of Charlie Gard.”

  3. Holly H »

    28 July 2017 · 3:06 pm

    May each of us be spared the trauma of such a decision. Because, as this writer has stated it so eloquently, somebody has to make the call. Call it a “Death Panel” if you want, but the call has to be made by someone.

  4. Francis W. Porretto »

    28 July 2017 · 3:27 pm

    Every government, no matter how constituted (or not), seeks the power of life and death over each and every one of its subjects. It appears that Britain has got there. Congratulations to the political elite of Britain, and condolences to its subjects.

  5. The Other McCain »

    28 July 2017 · 8:35 pm

    In The Mailbox: 07.28.17

    Dustbury: Goodbye, Charlie

  6. ETat »

    29 July 2017 · 7:14 am

    Andrew King: not sure if you agreed with Ms. Philips to all her arguments, but one is fundamentally wrong. No court, independent of state or not, should be able to make parents to surrender their child’s life, to bow to some judge’s decision to kill the kid.
    And it’s not “medical profession against Charlie’s parents”. It has been known almost immediately that several clinics in America offered medical help, were willing to try to save him. It is precisely “who pays?” that drove the British courts’ decision – because as British subject, Charlie’s medical care should be paid for by NHS, no matter the country he receives it.

RSS feed for comments on this post