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 ...
Some make the case the child is already dead. Unless you have information which is not available in the article, it remains an open question.
Now, who pays the cost associated with this?
It seems as if your emotions have overtaken your ability to consider this in a rational manner.
I am sure it does, but whether one strangles or dehydrates, the kid still is dead even though he does not need to be snuffed. As you can suppose, from years of experience, I am not enamored of medical ethics, but do get concerned about the killing of innocents sanctioned by the state and laws. I guess it is something carried over from abhorring the techniques developed to art form in Hitler's time.
Now, would you care to explain why you said he shouldn't even get palliative care, when that's not even what anyone was talking about? I know it's because you were confused, but go ahead and wiggle out of it. See if you can do it without getting any of your posts removed this time.
He's brain damaged. So he can function as well as anyone else his age with similar brain damage. He can't build a space ship, if that's the criteria. Where would you like to draw the line between the right to live and the duty to die? Shall we make it somewhere below your level of functioning, or above it?
Nice try but no cigar. I will not be steered off the topic at hand, that of the laws allowing kids to be killed as in this case. If you have followed my zillions of posts on this topic, you would know. The emotional ones are the ones sobbing over the demise of Dr. Death yesterday.
8mm
Receiving palliative care would do the child no good. He is brain damaged.
In this case, the hospital is being asked to pay for the very expensive care of a patient they deem to be futile. Unless the mother can prove their prognosis wrong, or she comes up with the money, I see no reason why the hospital in this specific case should not prevail.
Here's a good illustration of this . . .
A modern medical facility these days could probably keep a patient "alive" indefinitely, based on the definitions of "alive" commonly used by the medical community. And yet the same hospital that would provide mechanical substites for most bodily functions on a temporary basis for a major surgical procedure would not be expected to do the same thing for a 100 year-old patient (indefinitely) who is brought into the hospital with massive organ failure, multiple infections, etc.
In other words, Doctor, you have no idea what palliative care is. Thank you for your input.
There is an enormous distinction between removing someone from a mechanical form of life support that replaces a natural "primary" body function and the deliberate killing of innocent patients.
Letters | Response on Terri Schiavo
8mm
Where does it say the mother is paying? Either the hospital and doctors are paying, by providing services without payment (and charging other patients more to compensate), or the taxpayers are paying (at Medicaid rates, which don't cover costs, and again force the hospital to charge more to self-pay and insured patients), or an insurance company is paying.
And let's be clear about what sort of order this court issued. It's not a "restraining order", which would prohibit someone from doing a particular thing. It's an involuntary servitude order, in which unwilling hospital staff have been ordered by the government to continue providing a service which they do not wish to provide, do not believe is ethical to provide, and are most likely receiving little or no payment for.
I haven't followed, and see no need to follow your zillions of posts on this subject.
You have resorted to emotional language, hence my observation.
Now back to the pertinent questions;
"Authorities" refer to people with authority to make decisions. In this case who are they? For some unknown reason, you have avoided answering.
Next, who pays and for how long?
Important questions if one is to consider the topic rationally and without emotional irrationality.
Bonus question, what kind of a law do you advocate be enacted in lieu of the laws you find offensive?
Naughty-naughty.
Would it be futile to allow him to continue to receive supplemental oxygen? Why would you even consider taking oxygen away from an otherwise healthy and functioning human being?
If his oxygen tank were to cost $100 per month to operate, you can be damn sure that your sense of obligation to provide for his care would be much different than if it cost $1 million per month.
This isn't a 100 year old man who's dying. This is a 10 month old baby who's not dying. Big difference. The decision to kill this child is based on his perceived level of intelligence. Today, the dividing line is just above his level, but well below yours. The line is moving up. The line used to be drawn between dead and alive. Now it's drawn at a level of intelligence, which is subjective. How high does it have to get before someone you know is included? Does someone you know have to be included before you see anything wrong with it?
"We will not be silent. We are your bad conscience. The White Rose will give you no rest."
The problem is that you're missing the point. The point is WHY are these life support mechanisms being removed? If the patient is brain damaged or brain dead, then the cause of death makes no difference since the patient is already (medically) "dead".
If the patient is not brain damaged or brain dead, then were talking about "quality of life" and euthanasia. That is not the case here, nor was it with Terri Shiavo.
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.