Posted on 06/01/2006 7:20:27 AM PDT by 8mmMauser
DALLAS A mother fighting to keep her baby on life support, despite a hospital's determination that her efforts would be futile, will get two more weeks to find a facility that will take the 10-month-old. A judge had been set to decide tomorrow whether to grant a temporary injunction to stop Children's Medical Center in Dallas from removing Daniel Wayne Cullen the Second from life support. But attorneys for the boy's mother and the hospital agreed yesterday to extend a temporary restraining order for another two weeks.
Attorney Brian Potts, who represents the boy's mother, Dixie Belcher, said he plans to submit the agreement to a judge today.
The baby has had breathing problems since his premature birth and was hospitalized after suffering from a lack of oxygen when he pulled out a breathing tube. He remains on a ventilator.
(Excerpt) Read more at kten.com ...
May you find forgiveness, Dr. Cranford. Requiescant in Pace.
"So how should that determination be made?"
That's a good question.
When the heart stops beating, you know for sure, and other vital signs. I'm not an expert, but I do know that I would get many opinions and do much research if doctors were too quick to say that my loved one was "brain dead."
In my research one person that I would e-mail is wesleyjsmith.com, and as pro-life as he is, even he would not be my ONLY deciding factor for a loved one.
Also, please read T'wit's really informative post #160.
"(I wonder if they will discuss the organ harvesting in China of Christians and dissenters.)"
I kind of doubt if CNN will say anything negative about their favorite country.
Aside that, I hope CNN's show about organs is/was informative, though.
I have been unable to find any followup stories on baby Daniel. Some updates must have occurred by now.
So you don't know. And since you don't know, well, then I suppose we have have to keep people alive forever on machines.
Yep, despite the patient's wishes, despite the emotional and financial cost to the survivors, Sun says that we should keep the loved one alive as long as science allows, since we can never "really be sure".
Good answer. Thanks a lot for your contribuition to the thread -- which obviously consists of nothing more than telling people how they're wrong without saying what's right.
Have you noticed the similarities between Haleigh's case and Baby Daniel's? Both children are -- God help them! -- in the custody of state child protection agencies, and in both cases the bureaucrats have been perfectly willing to bump them off early, regardless of relatives' wishes. Do you suppose state agencies are in bed with the human chop shops that trade in organs?
I believe both children were described in identical words, "nearly brain dead." Now, that is not medical terminology. It's too vague to describe any recognized medical condition. The bureaucrats invoke "brain death" in order to justify killing the children (and to cover their sorry butts). But the children are not brain dead.
Haleigh fooled her executioners and got better. So far as we've heard, she's getting good care now. Baby Daniel could get better too if he gets the chance. Sun (above) reported a case where a child made a surprising recovery. But are these cases such a surprise? Children, especially infants, have a far greater capacity to transcend brain injuries than adults. They should always get the benefit of the doubt. They should get extra care and recovery time.
Show us one case of Sun "telling people how they're wrong"?
I looked at all of Sun's posts and couldn't find anything the least bit inappropriate. On the contrary, they are models of courteous, grown-up communication. The true story related in #157 is to the point, informative and inspirational -- a fine contribution to this thread.
I stated that a person with no brain activity is dead. Sun said I was wrong in the very same post to which you referred.
Did she not? I don't care that she cited some bogus story. And the issue isn't whether the story is bogus.
Did she imply by referencing that story that I was wrong or didn't she?
And what about the fact that Sun offers no statement as to when a person IS dead?
No. You said "telling people." Sun didn't "tell" you that you were wrong (or anything else) but merely stated -- accurately -- that "clinically" the statement "could" be wrong. That is the correct, impersonal way to put things.
You had no complaint.
What a weaselly explanation! What a bunch of unadulterated bull$hit.
So there is a way of assessing death where the person cannot be wrong? I didn't see it mentioned, though I asked for it.
It's easy to sit at the keyboard and say "this poster is wrong" and "that poster is wrong" and "you're wrong" and "he's wrong". It's another to say this is the right way.
Wouldn't you agree?
You sure get testy when people disagree with you. You are rude, and worse, you downright lie.
I have been polite to you, and honest. That's probably because I'm secure in my beliefs, while you are not.
I said in my post that I would research if my loved one were in that predicament, and get other opinions. Is that bad advice? Do you have blind belief in everything a doctor says? Hope not.
Did you read T'wit's post #160? Are you afraid to read it?
Here's my post again, and compare it with your response to me, and you will see that robertpaulsen has a knee-jerk reaction to a post without reading it very well.
"That's a good question.
When the heart stops beating, you know for sure, and other vital signs. I'm not an expert, but I do know that I would get many opinions and do much research if doctors were too quick to say that my loved one was "brain dead."
In my research one person that I would e-mail is wesleyjsmith.com, and as pro-life as he is, even he would not be my ONLY deciding factor for a loved one.
Also, please read T'wit's really informative post #160."
"No. You said "telling people." Sun didn't "tell" you that you were wrong (or anything else) but merely stated -- accurately -- that "clinically" the statement "could" be wrong. That is the correct, impersonal way to put things.
You had no complaint."
Thank you. I couldn't have said it better.
Fine. So that's your answer.
In Terri Schiavo's case, that's exactly what they did. And they determined she was PVS and clinically dead. Therefore, based on your own criteria, you agree with their assessment.
Correct?
You are digressing, which shows you have been bested.
He even told the Shindlers how well she did, just like he told Terri how well she did. I know that gets you down to bed rock, like me.
Aren't you forgeting that the autopsy said niether?
> Aren't you forgeting that the autopsy said niether?
The M.E. said that Terri was essentially healthy and could have been expected to live at least ten more years. That in itself is strong evidence that Terri was in at least a "minimally conscious" state. PVS patients seldom live long.
All that matters is what Cranford told Greer, which was the opposite. He was, if you strip away the niceties, hired to kill Terri and for no other reason. They imported him all the way from Minnesota to say those magic words that make it legal to kill her -- Terri is "PVS." He said the words. He made a career of saying the words. He never failed to say them. That made the vote 3-to-2 in favor of putting Terri to death.
Ain't "science" wonderful?
Cut the potty talk.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.