The Case Of Baby Indi

Government intrusion and overreach have always been a concern of ours and there has been no greater example of where we’re headed than the recent case of baby Indi Gregory in the UK. It is fascinating that when it comes to abortion rights, the left seemingly has unlimited latitude in granting a woman’s “right to choose” to terminate her pregnancy at any time and for any reason. Further, they want the taxpayer to foot the bill for services rendered. And yet when it comes to treatment to extend life, to grant access to experimental treatments, the so-called “right to try”, the government chooses to exert control over not just the payment, but over the access to the treatment altogether. Such is the case of baby Indi. For those of you not familiar with the case, I will provide a short synopsis as reported in the WSJ: 8-month-old baby Indi, was tragically born with a rare genetic disorder and even more tragically was born in the UK where the National Health Service administers their brand of socialized medicine to the public. The NHS determined that there was nothing more they could do for the child and elected to remove her from life support. The parents objected and sought relief from the courts who sided with the NHS and ordered the child moved to hospice care. The parents sought medical second opinions, eventually finding a children’s hospital in Italy that specialized in pediatric genetic disorders and determined that there existed a treatment plan that could extend the child’s life. The Vatican-affiliated hospital offered the treatment free of charge and even made baby Indi an Italian citizen to facilitate a transfer.  But again, the NHS intervened and determined that it was in the best interest of baby Indi to die in the UK. The courts agreed yet again. Not only was the child transferred to hospice care, but she was moved under police escort just in case the parents tried to pull a fast one. With life support withheld, the parents stood by helplessly and watched the child die two days later. So in analysis, one can understand that the NHS, socialized medicine by any other name, determined that it was not cost-effective to continue to treat the child. A roomful of accountants in cubicles essentially reduces the lives of you and your loved ones to a spreadsheet where they balance the cost of saving a child’s life with what they deem a more beneficial application of those funds to, for example, drug abuse programs, abortions, and the treatment of preventable diseases like emphysema in chronic smokers and cirrhosis in alcoholics. Not to mention all of Gen Z who apparently require funding for their anti-depression medication. And in this age of equality, you all must wait your turn, whether you’ve paid exorbitant taxes into the system your entire working life or have suckled at the government teat as a welfare recipient since birth. Just a cog in the wheel. I wonder how this would have turned out if it was the child of a member of Parliament.  But I digress. If cost analysis was the only reason for denying care, then why did the government intervene and deny the parents the option to seek care elsewhere? Control has to be the answer. Was it a concern that the child would still require long-term care if her life was extended and she returned to Britain? Or was the government sending a message: do what you’re told and don’t question us, comrade? I suspect the latter. Recall back in the Obama years, you know those halcyon days of fundamentally changing America, the days when Obamacare was to be the stepping stone to socialized medicine, when if you liked your doctors you could keep them, when the average family would save $2000 a year on healthcare.   Yeah, that's nonsense. When Medicare for all became the rallying cry for the left when our own politicians would be exempt and continue to receive a privately administered, superior level of healthcare to that of their constituents. Remind me how has that worked out for you. Once again, the government exerts control over you while the elite political class basks in privilege. You know who they are, the ruling class of oligarchs who recently paid $40000 for the privilege of rubbing elbows with the authors of progressive policy and bending a knee to the dictator who rules communist China. Putting themselves in good stead for the new world order. And part of their ploy is to assume the public has no memory, an inability to remember broken promises, and a way of life consistent with the original constitutional premise of limited government. Again, I ask you to recall when Republicans were mocked and ridiculed for suggesting that socialized medicine would result in “death panels” that would decide our fate. And like all the failures of the progressive left here it is in the case of Indi, laid bare for all to see despite their denials. A child is given a death sentence by the government that’s supposed to protect her. Lastly one more recollection: reference Saul Alinsky, he of the “rules for radicals” playbook. In another treatise, he put forth the eight steps for converting from a democracy to a socialist society. Amongst them: “Control healthcare and you control the people.”  Americans aren’t there yet, but we sure appear to be taking the exit, driven there by leftist socialist policies that continue to erode our freedoms and eat away at the core of our democracy.