Notice the following case is being argued based on quality of life. And it seems to be just accepted that quality of life is a valid measure of whether or not the patient is allowed to continue receiving care that’s necessary for his survival. The only disagreement is whether or not his quality of life is high enough. This is London, but the sickness has a toehold here as well.
http://www.babychums.com/2009/11/father-fights-hospital’s-bid-to-remove-his-baby’s-life-support
Father fights hospital’s bid to remove his baby’s life support
November 1, 2009 by Shawn Douglas
A father is fighting to keep his one-year-old son, suffering from a neuromuscular condition, on life support.
On Monday, the father of Baby RB will go to London’s High Court tomorrow to argue that his son deserves to remain on life support. The hospital providing the services has asked for a court order to remove the child from the breathing apparatus that keeps him alive.
Baby RB suffers from a rare neuromuscular condition called congenital myasthenic syndrome. The condition causes the signals between nerve endings and muscles to be much weaker than normal, creating abnormally weak muscles in the afflicted.
If the hospital wins its argument in the High Court, it will mark the first time that a British court has terminated life support—against a parent’s wishes—of a child that doesn’t suffer from brain damage.
Lawyers representing the father have stated that the baby doesn’t suffer brain deficiencies due to the condition, has fully functional senses, and can recognize his parents.
“The father feels very strongly that Baby RB has a quality of life that demands the trust should continue to provide life-sustaining treatment,” said Christopher Cuddihee, speaking on behalf of the father.
The father clearly adores his son and hopes to demonstrate to the court that the trust’s application should be rejected.”
However, the father’s fight is being resisted by the mother of Baby RB. The baby’s mother, who is “amicably separated” from the father, supports the actions of the hospital.
The father plans to put forth evidence during the hearing that his son would benefit from a simple tracheostomy, a procedure that would allow his son to be discharged from the hospital and cared for in the home. In addition, he hopes that video montages, photographs, and recorded interactions with the baby will lend strength to his case.
As sad as these cases may seem, there is often little recourse other than the legal system to resolve such conflicts.
“When the parents and the clinical team don’t agree on the treatment for the child in question, the only way forward is to go to the courts and for the courts to decide on what is in the best interests of the child, which is paramount,” a spokeswoman for the British Medical Association told the Guardian.
If the hospital wins its argument in the High Court, it will mark the first time that a British court has terminated life support—against a parent’s wishes—of a child that doesn’t suffer from brain damage.Lawyers representing the father have stated that the baby doesn’t suffer brain deficiencies due to the condition, has fully functional senses, and can recognize his parents.
“The father feels very strongly that Baby RB has a quality of life that demands the trust should continue to provide life-sustaining treatment,” said Christopher Cuddihee, speaking on behalf of the father.