Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

British medics let baby die after court ruling (against parents' will)
AFP via Google News ^ | March 21, 2009 | AFP

Posted on 03/21/2009 1:42:43 PM PDT by SolidWood

LONDON (AFP) — A seriously ill British baby boy died on Saturday, the day after his parents lost a legal battle to force doctors to keep him alive.

The parents wanted medics to keep treating their son -- who had a rare metabolic disorder, was brain damaged and had suffered respiratory failure -- but doctors said he had no prospect of recovery and was in intolerable pain.

A hearing at the Court of Appeal on Friday to resolve the dispute backed the doctors although judges voiced the "deepest sympathy" for the mother and father of the nine-month-old boy.

The parents, who can only be identified as Mr and Mrs T due to a court order, released a statement through lawyers saying their son, named only as OT, died soon after 1000 GMT Saturday after doctors withdrew treatment.

(Excerpt) Read more at google.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Philosophy; Politics/Elections; United Kingdom
KEYWORDS: cultureofdeath; cultureoflife; eugenics; euthanasia; healthcare; moralabsolutes; obamacare; prolife; uselesseaters
Culture of Death.
1 posted on 03/21/2009 1:42:44 PM PDT by SolidWood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SolidWood
Well, it look like Soviet Britain is continuing the decline. I wonder why Americans (the 52% morons who voted for the O-hole) don't see what is happening in other countries and take note.
2 posted on 03/21/2009 1:46:51 PM PDT by dbehsman (NRA Life Member and loving every minute of it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SolidWood

The judge said you have our deepest sympathy, but we will kill him anyway.
Coming to a hospital near you.


3 posted on 03/21/2009 1:48:37 PM PDT by certrtwngnut (go to you tube @see screw the state of n.j.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SolidWood

Duplicate story from different source.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2211467/posts


4 posted on 03/21/2009 1:49:24 PM PDT by originalbuckeye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SolidWood


Poor little one. At least he's with the Lord and away from this world of immoral beasts.
5 posted on 03/21/2009 1:49:28 PM PDT by PetroniusMaximus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SolidWood

“That was the real argument between us and the doctors — they think his life is intolerable and that his disability is such that his life has little purpose but we, along with some of the nurses, believed that he experiences pleasure and that he has long periods where he was relaxed and pain-free.”


6 posted on 03/21/2009 1:50:44 PM PDT by KansasGirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SolidWood

Something doesn’t smell right, about this story.

I suspect there are some major factors that have been left out. It seems like the story has been ‘sanitized’ to provoke an emotional reaction, and some major facts have simply been deleted. I’d gather that the missing ‘facts’ have a lot to do with this ‘rare metabolic disorder’ and the ‘lung failure’.

Was the child born without intestines? Are the lungs immature? Was the child born to a drug addicted mother, thus had severe deformation of the lungs, heart, brain and digestive tract? The fact is, none of us knows.

With modern medicine, we can keep almost any physical body part alive indefinitely, whether the person has a brain, or if the head has been completely removed. The cold, hard facts of life is that any hospital has a limited amount of equipment, and limited financial access. If a child who will never recover is using the equipment, a child who has a high likelihood of recovery certainly may die, waiting to use that piece of equipment to become available. It’s first come, first serve. The MD’s cannot disconnect a patient from a machine, so the machine can be moved to another patient, lest they lose their license to practice medicine.


7 posted on 03/21/2009 2:00:00 PM PDT by Hodar (Who needs laws .... when this "feels" so right?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SolidWood

They are getting sick all the time


8 posted on 03/21/2009 2:00:05 PM PDT by freekitty (Give me back my conservative vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SolidWood

There isn’t enough detail here for me to form an opinion. What kind of pain was the child in and what was the ultimate prognosis with treatment?


9 posted on 03/21/2009 2:03:17 PM PDT by Melas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hodar

Exactly, without detailing the child’s condition and prognosis, there is no way to say yay or nay.


10 posted on 03/21/2009 2:04:59 PM PDT by Melas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: dbehsman

‘I wonder why Americans (the 52% morons who voted for the O-hole) don’t see what is happening in other countries and take note. ‘

Those of us that aren’t morons have noticed.

Unfortunately, reality is less accepted then the latest version of utopia by the kool aid drinkers.


11 posted on 03/21/2009 2:06:56 PM PDT by driftdiver (I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Melas

So in other words its ok for the doctors to overrule the parents in life and death decisions for children? Is that your position?


12 posted on 03/21/2009 2:07:59 PM PDT by driftdiver (I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver

My position is that there is not enough information in the story to form an opinion. I’m not one to be provoked into a knee-jerk reaction by vague generalities.


13 posted on 03/21/2009 2:12:09 PM PDT by Melas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: SolidWood

I remember when they MURDERED Terri Schiavo by starving her to death they said she felt no pain at all.


14 posted on 03/21/2009 2:12:45 PM PDT by this is my country
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SolidWood

We all should take a real look at our own, individual, potential value to the society of change. Then we can start looking out for our own interests instead hoping for the beneficence of the morally bankrupt.


15 posted on 03/21/2009 2:14:21 PM PDT by Steamburg ( Your wallet speaks the only language most politicians understand.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Melas

“My position is that there is not enough information in the story to form an opinion.”

Actually there is plenty of information. The baby was sick. The parents wanted the baby treated. The doctors decided to withhold treatment and effectively euthanize the baby.

So once again, is it ok for doctors to determine when a child should die regardless of the parents wishes?


16 posted on 03/21/2009 2:21:33 PM PDT by driftdiver (I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: this is my country

“I remember when they MURDERED Terri Schiavo by starving her to death they said she felt no pain at all.”

Her lawyer spoke at my church. She was certainly in pain according to his first hand description.


17 posted on 03/21/2009 2:22:32 PM PDT by driftdiver (I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Hodar
Something doesn’t smell right, about this story. I suspect there are some major factors that have been left out. It seems like the story has been ‘sanitized’ to provoke an emotional reaction, and some major facts have simply been deleted. I’d gather that the missing ‘facts’ have a lot to do with this ‘rare metabolic disorder’ and the ‘lung failure’.

There was a thread on free republic a year or two back about a young girl in England that successfully sued for the right to end treament and go home home to die.
you should have seen some of the responses,people and goverments sometimes need to shutup and let the doctors do their job

18 posted on 03/21/2009 2:30:49 PM PDT by Charlespg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: SolidWood

Must be widespread, then, since this decision was consistent with Catholic Church teaching that it is permissible to withdraw artificial, mechanical life support measures and allow the patient to die naturally. Who exactly is NOT part of the “culture of death” in your opinion?


19 posted on 03/21/2009 2:44:43 PM PDT by GovernmentShrinker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GovernmentShrinker
Silly me... but I think the decision of the parents who wanted their baby to live, counts more than the opinion of the doctors, courts and Catholic Church, which you somehow brought into this matter.
20 posted on 03/21/2009 2:46:49 PM PDT by SolidWood (Palin: "In Alaska we eat therefore we hunt.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver; Melas; Hodar
So once again, is it ok for doctors to determine when a child should die regardless of the parents wishes?

Flip the question around. Should parents be allowed to insist on the continued artificial infliction of pain on a helpless child who has no chance of ever getting off a ventilator or out of the hospital, or even surviving much longer in the hospital on the ventilator? In my book, parents don't have the right to torture their children, and most certainly don't have the right to use the government to force unwilling doctors to carry out the torture and to force unwilling taxpayers to finance the torture.

21 posted on 03/21/2009 2:50:36 PM PDT by GovernmentShrinker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: SolidWood

The Catholic Church has been a leading promoter of the “culture of life” concept, and yet it does not teach that there is an obligation to keep people alive artificially via mechanical means. Believing that such an ethical obligation does exist, puts the believer on the extreme fringe, in which the Catholic Church is among the parties classified as promoting the “culture of death”.


22 posted on 03/21/2009 2:54:29 PM PDT by GovernmentShrinker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: GovernmentShrinker

I am not a Catholic and do not need the Catholic Church’s definition of what is part of the culture of Death and what not. I think the notion is rather silly that anyone pro-life has to follow the Catholic Church 100%.


23 posted on 03/21/2009 2:58:27 PM PDT by SolidWood (Palin: "In Alaska we eat therefore we hunt.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver

What sickness? What treatment? These are details that absolutely must be known before a valid opinion (as opposed to a knee-jerk reaction) can be formed.

Not everything is treatable, and there is indeed a point where treatment amounts to nothing more than torturing the dying. Does that apply to the infant in question? I have no idea, because there are no details to speak of in the story.

Btw, I don’t believe in absolute parental rights. I cheer when life-saving blood is given to a child against the wishes of Jehovah’s witness parents. I applaud when tumors are removed against the wishes of Christian Science parents who believe in no medical treatment at all. You don’t have a right to kill a child that can be saved, and by extension you don’t have the right to torture a child who’s terminal.


24 posted on 03/21/2009 3:03:42 PM PDT by Melas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver
Her lawyer spoke at my church. She was certainly in pain according to his first hand description.

Yes, I know she was in pain and I will never forget her eyes. It always looked like she wanted to say something. God rest her soul and the British baby boy.

25 posted on 03/21/2009 3:41:04 PM PDT by this is my country
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: SolidWood
-- but doctors said he had no prospect of recovery and was in intolerable pain.

Well, what do they know? /s

Not enough information.

26 posted on 03/21/2009 3:51:07 PM PDT by TigersEye (Cloward-Piven Strategy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Melas

“What sickness? What treatment? These are details that absolutely must be known before a valid opinion (as opposed to a knee-jerk reaction) can be formed.”

Nope, either you support the parents rights to determine care for the child or you support the states rights. Its one or the other. You apparently have chosen the state.


27 posted on 03/21/2009 4:01:19 PM PDT by driftdiver (I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: GovernmentShrinker

“Should parents be allowed to insist on the continued artificial infliction of pain on a helpless child who has no chance of ever getting off a ventilator or out of the hospital, or even surviving much longer in the hospital on the ventilator?”

Well I guess you will have that here in the near future. I hope you have good luck trusting some govt official with your life.

“In my book, parents don’t have the right to torture their children, and most certainly don’t have the right to use the government to force unwilling doctors to carry out the torture and to force unwilling taxpayers to finance the torture.”

Requesting medical care is not torture. Remember this is socialised medicine. Its really more about the government determined this child is too expensive to keep alive.

We’ll have that here soon.


28 posted on 03/21/2009 4:05:39 PM PDT by driftdiver (I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: SolidWood
Pinged from Terri Dailies


29 posted on 03/21/2009 4:49:18 PM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SolidWood; 185JHP; 230FMJ; 50mm; 69ConvertibleFirebird; Aleighanne; Alexander Rubin; ...
Moral Absolutes Ping!

Freepmail wagglebee or DirtyHarryY2K to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.

FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]


30 posted on 03/21/2009 4:51:00 PM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Charlespg

If that is the girl I think you are referring to I think her name is Hannah she refused to undergo any further invasive treatment and wished to end her days at home with her parents, she in fact is still alive and as yet still able to live a fairly normal life.


31 posted on 03/21/2009 5:50:13 PM PDT by snugs ((An English Cheney Chick - Big Time))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: SolidWood

The grim reaper is Socialism’s best friend.


32 posted on 03/21/2009 5:51:36 PM PDT by FlingWingFlyer (Just being a "U.S. citizen" does not make one an American.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver
Nope, either you support the parents rights to determine care for the child or you support the states rights.

I only partially agree with your statement. There are a lot of idiot "parents" out there; like that couple (from the UK) that are suing the doctor for NOT starving their baby to death.

Anyhow, above the rights of the state and the parents are the rights of the child. The basis of our Nation, are the God given unalienable rights to LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It doesn't guarantee us to live forever, allow us to do whatever we want, or guarantee we will be happy, but it is intended to prevent the state from denying those rights. However, in an event such as this, the rights should default to the child. The child's right to life should be upheld. Not the parents' rights and not the doctor's rights.

Now, that said, parents should still retain the right to make medical decisions for their child.... ie the state cannot say this vaccine or that vaccine must be given etc. Just that no party has the right to terminate care or make decisions that will beyond reasonable doubt cause the child to die.

33 posted on 03/21/2009 6:43:36 PM PDT by Repeat Offender (While the wicked stand confounded, call me with Thy Saints surrounded)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Repeat Offender

Well said.

IMHO the decision was more about the budget than what this child did or did not need.

It happens every day under socialized medicine.


34 posted on 03/21/2009 6:45:27 PM PDT by driftdiver (I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver
IMHO the decision was more about the budget than what this child did or did not need.

At the end of the day, the bottom line budget determines how long EVERY SINGLE SOUL will live. Sure, if it's economically viable, we'll find a kidney to keep you alive - but if you require too much cash .... you are a going to die. Your medical insurance has a maximum payout (mine is $2 Mil).

Now, I love my parents, I love my wife - but I'm not willing to put a gun to your head to force you to keep them alive indefinitely. No one is entitled to infinite medical support. If you can afford the best, chances are that you'll live a bit longer than the poor - welcome to Capitalism 101.

We are all going to die, life is a terminal disease. Some of us just check out with money left over, others want to bankrupt the country to postpone the inevitiable.

35 posted on 03/21/2009 11:02:48 PM PDT by Hodar (Who needs laws .... when this "feels" so right?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: snugs
She is the person I was referring to.

glad she is still alive
36 posted on 03/22/2009 6:47:25 AM PDT by Charlespg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Hodar
Very true. On the subject of cost yes there is as you say always an element of this within any medical care but the policy of the NHS is that children and indeed babies take precedence over all other patients. A couple of years ago my father had his hip op postponed twice because there was a child in a critical condition who was in the operating theatre for several hours so the adult operations that day (that were not life or death) which was Good Friday were re-scheduled for Easter Saturday.

I would say that our neonatal care and funding is one of the highest priorities in the NHS. Where there is often a problem is the attitude of the doctors and their interpretation of quality over quantity of life especially with older patients. A lot of the doctors and they deny it is to do with funding feel it is cruel to put an elderly patient through an op with very low percentage of recovery/survival and instead to treat conservatively and make comfort and allow them to die peacefully in their opinion.

I came across this several times with dad last November but in the end they were forced to make the proactive decision and operate because after yet another colonoscopy which was hoped would untwist the bowel and deflate the stomach basically did the opposite and he was left in agony and even oral-morph would not touch the pain. He was rushed down to the operating theatre within the hour and his colon removed. He survived and has just come home unfortunately due to being immobile for so long before and after the op he has muscle wastage and may never walk again. He is however mentally alert and has a good appetite and on the whole content yet some doctors would say he has a low quality of life because of the immobility and being confined to home.

Each person and each family are different however if it was the case that this baby would never have been able to breath on its own and due to their mental state never communicate then I have to feel that maybe the right decision has been made. I feel for the parents but to prolong the heartache for all concerned if there was no hope IMHO is wrong. In my father's case he was in a mental state to make the decision to go for surgery knowing he only had a 5 per cent chance of full recovery and 10 per cent of surviving the actual op.

37 posted on 03/22/2009 7:17:47 AM PDT by snugs ((An English Cheney Chick - Big Time))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Hodar
Very true. On the subject of cost yes there is as you say always an element of this within any medical care but the policy of the NHS is that children and indeed babies take precedence over all other patients. A couple of years ago my father had his hip op postponed twice because there was a child in a critical condition who was in the operating theatre for several hours so the adult operations that day (that were not life or death) which was Good Friday were re-scheduled for Easter Saturday.

I would say that our neonatal care and funding is one of the highest priorities in the NHS. Where there is often a problem is the attitude of the doctors and their interpretation of quality over quantity of life especially with older patients. A lot of the doctors and they deny it is to do with funding feel it is cruel to put an elderly patient through an op with very low percentage of recovery/survival and instead to treat conservatively and make comfort and allow them to die peacefully in their opinion.

I came across this several times with dad last November but in the end they were forced to make the proactive decision and operate because after yet another colonoscopy which was hoped would untwist the bowel and deflate the stomach basically did the opposite and he was left in agony and even oral-morph would not touch the pain. He was rushed down to the operating theatre within the hour and his colon removed. He survived and has just come home unfortunately due to being immobile for so long before and after the op he has muscle wastage and may never walk again. He is however mentally alert and has a good appetite and on the whole content yet some doctors would say he has a low quality of life because of the immobility and being confined to home.

Each person and each family are different however if it was the case that this baby would never have been able to breath on its own and due to their mental state never communicate then I have to feel that maybe the right decision has been made. I feel for the parents but to prolong the heartache for all concerned if there was no hope IMHO is wrong. In my father's case he was in a mental state to make the decision to go for surgery knowing he only had a 5 per cent chance of full recovery and 10 per cent of surviving the actual op.

38 posted on 03/22/2009 7:17:55 AM PDT by snugs ((An English Cheney Chick - Big Time))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Hodar

“but I’m not willing to put a gun to your head to force you to keep them alive indefinitely. No one is entitled to infinite medical support. If you can afford the best, chances are that you’ll live a bit longer than the poor - welcome to Capitalism 101.’

In the UK they don’t have that option. If you pay for your own care then you give up the govt care and will be billed for what you’ve received.


39 posted on 03/22/2009 10:48:00 AM PDT by driftdiver (I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson