Private health insurance will also get to decide who lives or who dies and experimental treatment is disallowed. Even proven treatment is sometimes disallowed, if deemed too expensive. I know a professor that cannot get a colonoscopy because his private health insurance won’t help pay for it, and he cannot afford it outright. He cannot change his insurance if there is a possible pre-existing condition, which cannot, ironically, be proven that he has no pre-existing condition without the colonoscopy. Also, a colonoscopy is not a treatment. My health insurance partially paid for mine, in fact they recommended it. NHS vs. Private insurance is not the issue here.
Gard and Yates cannot go to the U.S. to attempt at extending or saving Charlie’s life. As soon as Charlie is taken off life support, he will die. What they want is to have the experimental U.S. treatment administered in the U.K. There are also no airline (that I know of) that would accept him as a passenger with all the life support systems that would need to be in place. I’m not even sure if a private jet company would want to possibly be blamed for Charlie’s death if the transfer is not done correctly.
Gard and Yates also asked to let Charlie die at home. He actually won’t survive the trip home. He will still die at the hospital as soon as he is disconnected from life support. Now, I ask, as a parent, if your child could be saved (not just life extended) by normal treatment, would it be acceptible to have Charlie to be on life support, if there is no room for your baby?