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 ...
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.
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”.
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%.
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.
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.
Well, what do they know? /s
Not enough information.
“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.
“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.
Freepmail wagglebee or DirtyHarryY2K to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
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.
The grim reaper is Socialism’s best friend.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
“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.
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.