Posted on 11/10/2009 10:52:34 PM PST by pillut48
In the end the young father could fight no longer.
For more than a year he had made daily visits to the hospital bedside of his chronically-disabled son.
For six emotional days in the High Court he had battled against the hospital - and the baby's mother - who were reluctantly seeking the right to withdraw life support.
Finally, faced with overwhelming evidence, he made the 'agonising' decision to let his beloved son go.
Both parents wept as the court was told he no longer opposed the hospital's application.
They said later they wanted to spend 'what little time remains with their beloved son'.
The father's heart-breaking move came after an independent expert said his son's quality of life was not good enough to justify prolonging it.
The 13-month-old boy, identified only as RB, has an extremely rare disorder that has robbed him of almost all muscle control.
His brain is undamaged, but trapped in an almost immovable body, unable to speak or even smile.
Incapable of breathing, he has been dependent on a ventilator since he was born.
Now it will be turned off within days. Doctors will administer a large dose of sedative to ensure the little boy does not suffer as he dies.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
“Just think what you pay for the cost of building, maintaining, manning and equipping eight aircraft carriers and their escort for twenty years to prepare for imagined threats. “
Imagined threats eh. Yes the world is full of friendly, helpful people.
If the only thing that kept this dear little child alive was living in a hospital, then, painful as it is, he wasn't going to have any real life without a miraculous solution to heal him.
As a mother I can imagine the pain of the parents and family, but for this little guy's sake, letting him go just might be the right thing to do. He obviously can't survive on his own.
So very sad.
I completely agree.
I don´t think it is my deep seated need to see people earning more than me punished. Over 20 years ago I earned more than 99.9 of the people on here and that was in the mid West. I am appalled at how little has change in those 20 years even though the dollar has lost over 50% of its value, and the cost of housing, state and local taxes have quadrupled. Not to mention hundreds of percentage increases in health care.
The real difference between us is that I have been under the British system, the American system, and the Spanish system and as you have seen by my other posts I do have some experience of the reality not tabloid half truths and propaganda.
You see ricky, I saw a YouTube video of a patient in a hospital waiting room fall over and die with the guard and medical personnel doing nothing to help except walk around him and observe, they claimed they did this for about an hour.
Now do I think that I will find dead bodies all of the floor of American Hospitals, of course not - I use common sense and do not extrapolate from that one incident the return of Twelfth Imam, the Rapture or any other cataclysmic event.
Now as to the 3 year old girl having her operation postponed, that may surprise you that that happens all the time everywhere. The story is simple, in October they told the mother she would need the operation in a year to eighteen months the hit piece you referred to was written in April 6 months later, and already it was postponed 3 time so when was the first time - Obviously well within the framework of 12 to 18 months. Even the mother did not think she need the operation as she was so well.
When you read newspaper articles be rational and not be guided to the conclusion that the writer wants to foist upon the simple. Although, in this case the writer is innocent but the reader had an axe to grind.
Read here:
Her parents, Ian Cotterell and Rachel Davis, were told last October that she would need an operation within 12 to 18 months.
Doctors carried out two angioplasties, where small balloons are inserted and inflated to clear a blocked blood vessel, but neither was successful.
Further surgery was initially planned for April 2 but was cancelled because of emergency cases and rearranged for four days later, the couple said. However, the operation was cancelled again for the same reason.
A third date was arranged for April 20 and last Thursday Ella went to the hospital for tests. On Saturday her parents received another call explaining her operation would have to be cancelled.
Ms Davis, who works part-time as an accident and emergency nurse at the Frenchay Hospital in Bristol, said that she was devastated when she was told there were not enough beds.
“My husband and I were in tears,” she said. “When our six-year-old son Liam asked what was wrong we told him Ella’s operation had been cancelled again and he said we should tell Gordon Brown.”
The family are waiting for another surgery date. In the meantime, Ella is having to take adult doses of medication to control her blood pressure.
“We have asked the doctors if she really needs the surgery as she is so happy at the moment and is running around like a normal little girl, but she could drop down dead at any moment,” Ms Davis said.
I think this shows a System that cares for people - no quibbles about pre-existing conditions no humongous co-pays not losing your insurance for ever because you claimed
I am afraid I must not be a rational person in your book. I do take comfort that I am in good company with the rest of the civilized world - so what can I do?
Pray for him, disconnect him, let God decide. Prolonging life eternally simply because we can, is just as dangerous as ending life prematurely because it is expedient. Both are immoral IMHO.
Murder. Murder. Murder.
The National spirit murdered, the Dad’s spirit murdered, the son murdered.
You are dead already, like a shadow you prey on the living.
I agree with you about death row inmates.
I am sorry about the little boy that died but you see private insurance passed the buck to the Government no matter what you call it.
Passed the buck is not the right word - kept the buck and passed the liability to the Government.
Conservstives support that?
I also know the huge tax burden on the Swedes. Myself, I had to turn down work last week. Why should I work while I am here to pay 60 cents on every dollar in taxes? And then another 25 percent VAT tax on nearly every purchase. Do you see the cost to a society with that huge, punitive tax burden? I also know because of the hugely inflated prices due to the VAT, I buy as little as possible. That also effects workers, wages and job creation. I'll wait and buy it on my home leaves or while on vacation in Thailand or anywhere but here. The fact remains these healthcare systems drain societies and are not sustainable.
I know the American system and while not perfect, is pretty damn good. I can go the my doctor with morning about an issue and have her order a test. I can choose from one of DOZENS of scanning facilities within a five mile radius of my home and have the scan or test run the same morning.
If something is wrong, I can have those results the next day, maybe even that same day and begin my decision making process using potentially life saving time.
The system needs some reform, no one disputes that but not following Europe's footsteps. Europe is a dying continent in many ways, not a blueprint for success.
The difference is, that in our current system, he could have the surgery paid for privately. That is against the law in the UK. Wouldn’t be “fair.” Wouldn’t use “resources appropriately.”
Some insurances would have done the surgery to get him home, for cheaper care. He would most likely have died from an infection by now. I don’t understand the reasoning behind refusing, unless it’s the legal problem of difference of opinion between the parents about what is best for the boy.
That's correct only if you mean that the state wouldn't pay for private care. Not correct if you mean that the parents couldn't choose to pay for private care themselves, if they have the means. They can. Nothing illegal about that - people do it here (in Britain) all the time - me included.
Freepmail wagglebee or DirtyHarryY2K to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
NICE rules, however. I remember when Tamiflu was off the list.
If they decide that a treatment will not be offered, is it not true that it is illegal to purchase it privately?
You said that beautifully. I agree with you. It should be the parents choice. As I have said here before, My husband and I had to make that choice for our little boy. Was so hard to do. In the end we did the right thing.
Just because we can keep a person alive indefinately, does not mean that we should.
God Bless those parents
I was wondering if the parents could have been trained to care for him at home? Many parents are capable of taking over very complex nursing duties.
No, the doctors did not God.
What Cherry is saying is that if nature was allowed to take its course, that precious child would have gone to God long ago.
What conservatives don't support it adding a 1.3 TRILLION dollar tax burden on an american taxpayer populace & economy thats almost broke.
What conservatives don't support is a "bill" that is 100% unsupported by the US Constitution.
What conservatives don't support is breaking more government programs to create more government programs that don't work.
The difference of opinion probabably would preclude that route.
The mother has the primary responsibility and she is not willing to watch her baby suffer. Additionally, all the family were also against it.
Decisions as far reaching and life changing as that cannot and should not be made on emotion by adults.
As for not having private care in England that is just not true.
Then please explain, in detail, what entails private health care in England. How does it work? How does the socialized health care system interact/work with the private health care? What does the private health care cost? Who pays the brunt of the cost for the socialized health care and where does the private health care figure into this?
Just saying "we have private health care too" doesn't whitewash the fact that the british socialized health care system is an overall dismal failure (in quality & quantity). Are you guys getting (your money's worth) what the taxpaying populace is paying for?
No - what I suspect you're thinking of is that once you've opted for private care for a particular condition, the NHS won't then fund part of that particular care package. However, that rule seems to be on the way out, as reported here:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/3255806/NHS-patients-will-be-allowed-to-pay-for-private-top-up-care-says-Alan-Johnson.html
(Sorry - can't seem to make this show as a link, you may need to cut & paste the url...)
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.