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

Skip to comments.

Judge rules boy's life support can be switched off despite parents' hope of miracle
The Telegraph ^ | 13 Aug 2012 | Martin Beckford

Posted on 08/13/2012 3:43:08 AM PDT by markomalley

A judge has ordered that doctors can switch off a young boy’s life-support system even though his devout Christian parents pleaded for him to be kept alive in case of a miracle.

Mr Justice Ryder said there was no hope of the eight-year-old recovering from lung failure after a “tragic decline in health” and it would be wrong to keep him alive and possibly in pain on a machine.

He paid tribute to the boy’s parents and teenage sister, who told the High Court that they believed he was still conscious and that there was still a chance of divine intervention saving him.

But the judge said that “with a heavy heart” he had to agree to the hospital’s request to withdraw life-sustaining treatment as doctors and nurses agreed that all further interventions would be futile.

(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...


TOPICS: Extended News; Government; United Kingdom
KEYWORDS: deathpanels; moralabsolutes; nhs; obamacare; parentalrights; prolife
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-65 next last
So the State can order the death of this boy, despite the parents' wishes.
1 posted on 08/13/2012 3:43:18 AM PDT by markomalley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: markomalley

> So the State can order the death of this boy, despite the
> parents’ wishes.

Romney-care at work in Massachusetts.

It will be even worse under 0bama-care, if you can imagine it.


2 posted on 08/13/2012 3:55:30 AM PDT by Westbrook (Children do not divide your love, they multiply it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

Bump


3 posted on 08/13/2012 4:16:14 AM PDT by lowbridge (Joe Biden: "Look, the Taliban per se is not our enemy.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

Ping.


4 posted on 08/13/2012 4:24:29 AM PDT by TheSarce (Reject Socialism. Champion Liberty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

This happened in London under their government-run health care.

It sounds like there is nothing wrong with the boy’s brain. That he probably just needs time for his lungs to heal.


5 posted on 08/13/2012 4:46:15 AM PDT by FR_addict
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FR_addict

Heavenly Father Glorious King, Good Shepherd
Grant that this child may awaken and demonstrate he should be cared for and not suffocated by the doctors and nurses charged with his recovery.
In Jesus Holy Name
Amen


6 posted on 08/13/2012 5:04:38 AM PDT by yldstrk (My heroes have always been cowboys)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: markomalley
Liverpool Care Pathway for an 8 year old boy. We are in sooooo much trouble if Obama is reelected. I can see this just happening because you are a Republican.
7 posted on 08/13/2012 5:22:41 AM PDT by originalbuckeye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley; TheSarce; 185JHP; 230FMJ; AKA Elena; APatientMan; Albion Wilde; Aleighanne; ...
Moral Absolutes Ping!

Freepmail wagglebee 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 ]


8 posted on 08/13/2012 5:31:38 AM 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: markomalley
But the judge said that “with a heavy heart” he had to agree to the hospital’s request to withdraw life-sustaining treatment as doctors and nurses agreed that all further interventions would be futile. Weighing up the benefits and burdens of keeping the boy alive . . . ."

So that's how it works now with government healthcare. A judge weighs the benefits and burdens of keeping someone alive.

9 posted on 08/13/2012 5:32:36 AM PDT by Opinionated Blowhard ("When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

When the government pays the medical bills, they can decide when you are too expensive to keep alive. And the ungodly media crucified Sarah Palin for correctly pointing out that this will happen under ObamaCare as well.


10 posted on 08/13/2012 5:43:48 AM PDT by txrefugee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: txrefugee
I might be in the minority here, but I'm not so sure the judge made an incorrect decision here. This isn't just a function of government-run health care. It's the reality we face when any third party is involved in paying someone's medical bills in an industry where modern advances have brought about so many incredible, but very expensive, forms of treatment for ailments that used to be routinely considered fatal.

Would this family make the same decisions about their child's medical care if they were paying the medical bills themselves?

11 posted on 08/13/2012 6:03:16 AM PDT by Alberta's Child ("If you touch my junk, I'm gonna have you arrested.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: txrefugee
When the government pays the medical bills, they can decide when you are too expensive to keep alive. And the ungodly media crucified Sarah Palin for correctly pointing out that this will happen under ObamaCare as well.

It's not about Death Panels, it's about allocating that money more efficiently - for things like gender reassignment surgery that matter to the far left, not for something as trivial (to the far left) as saving a child's life.

12 posted on 08/13/2012 6:11:25 AM PDT by Pollster1 (Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. - Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

THIS illustrates what is ment by the term ‘Death Panels’ used when discussing ObamaCare/Socialized Medicine.


13 posted on 08/13/2012 6:15:48 AM PDT by Ed Story
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

Shades of Schiavo?


14 posted on 08/13/2012 6:23:36 AM PDT by Old Sarge (We are now officially over the precipice, we just havent struck the ground yet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yldstrk

I second your amen!!


15 posted on 08/13/2012 6:25:25 AM PDT by jesseam (eliev)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

I guess this boy didn’t quite “pencil out”.


16 posted on 08/13/2012 6:26:40 AM PDT by BobL (Cruz'd to Victory - July 31, 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pollster1

“It’s not about Death Panels, it’s about allocating that money more efficiently - for things like gender reassignment surgery that matter to the far left, not for something as trivial (to the far left) as saving a child’s life.”

Or paying for and encouraging illegals to breed here.


17 posted on 08/13/2012 6:44:54 AM PDT by Cowgirl of Justice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child


Would this family make the same decisions about their child’s medical care if they were paying the medical bills themselves?”

Um, you’re joking, right? What parent wouldn’t move mountains to save their child?

Your thoughts are sick. Your utilitarian view of human life is warped & not in-line with conservative values.


18 posted on 08/13/2012 6:55:12 AM PDT by surroundedbyblue (Live the message of Fatima - pray & do penance!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
Would this family make the same decisions about their child's medical care if they were paying the medical bills themselves?

I speak as the father of a child who died of cancer following five years of treatments in multiple hospitals. I can assure you that the cost would be least concern of his parents, regardless of who is paying. I often tire of Democrat anecdotes about the poor folks who lost their house because of medical bills. To us, it always seemed something of a no-brainer that you are better off broke than dead. But a state-run medical-legal regime that "Weigh(s) up the benefits and burdens of keeping the boy alive" will never, ever reach that same conclusion. To the government, it's always about dollars and cents.

19 posted on 08/13/2012 7:04:33 AM PDT by PhatHead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

“Would this family make the same decisions about their child’s medical care if they were paying the medical bills themselves?”

Are they even allowed to do this on their own at their own expense?


20 posted on 08/13/2012 7:38:44 AM PDT by CSM (Keeper of the Dave Ramsey Ping list. FReepmail me if you want your beeber stuned.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: PhatHead
To the government, it's always about dollars and cents.

So true, but the little American voters don't understand this.

21 posted on 08/13/2012 7:46:34 AM PDT by Theodore R. (Past is prologue: The American people have again let us down in this election cycle.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
Would this family make the same decisions about their child's medical care if they were paying the medical bills themselves?

Tough question, one that occurred to me as well.

Under the same circumstances, I'd want my child to live too and when I had spent all my resources, I'd still want him to live, though the decision to keep trying, would no longer be mine to make.

22 posted on 08/13/2012 8:42:04 AM PDT by Graybeard58 (If you fear Obama, you'll vote for Romney. If you fear God, you won't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Graybeard58

An ecmo machine is not intended for long term use and creates medical problems of it’s own. It is used to relieve stress on the heart and lungs allowing them to heal. From reading this and the rather limited medical info given, it sounds like that is not happening.

It is a difficult and painful decision for parents to make. Dear friends of ours made it with the prayers of FReepers asking God for wisdom and comfort.

I pray for the child and his family.


23 posted on 08/13/2012 8:52:48 AM PDT by kalee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

And there is the problem with Government Run Healthcare, otherwise known as the NHS, Obamacare or RomneyCare. The government officials can make a cost benefit analysis on one’s treatment and decide to stop treatment and cause a person to die.

However, at least for now, we are lucky to have a system of Private Insurance Companies none of which would ever make a cost benefit analysis on someone’s medical treatment and decide to stop treatment and cause a person to die.


24 posted on 08/13/2012 8:55:56 AM PDT by Uncle Slayton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yldstrk

Amen! in the Name of Jesus Christ!


25 posted on 08/13/2012 9:48:07 AM PDT by Faith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

Sometimes everything that can be done has been done. High
freq ventilation is not a long term solution,it is maximum
support. And ECMO is similar to being on heart-lung bypass
as during openheart surgery(which folks are on for a couple of hours). A month of it is longer than i’ve ever heard of. If you read the story, the little guy was born early, had corrective heart surgery and a subsequent surgery did not go well. Life is fragile. Not everything can be fixed all
the time.

He has received extremely intensive,maxed out life support and surgeries,based on the article. The reason we are hearing about this is that most parents agree to discontinue treatment when the time comes,and sounds like
his are not.


26 posted on 08/13/2012 1:35:25 PM PDT by americas.best.days...
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: americas.best.days...

I’ve heard of pts on ECMO for weeks or months & I believe the longest was 180 days.

The point here is who’s decision is this? Certainly not the gov’s


27 posted on 08/13/2012 2:40:04 PM PDT by surroundedbyblue (Live the message of Fatima - pray & do penance!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: surroundedbyblue
1. I'm not joking at all.

2. My point is a legitimate one.

3. There's nothing wrong or irrational about discussing legitimate points about the costs (financial and others) of providing medical care in difficult (likely futile) cases?

4. Please cite me one piece of documented evidence to support a claim that it is somehow "conservative" to provide medical care indefinitely to a patient under any circumstances?

28 posted on 08/13/2012 4:10:03 PM PDT by Alberta's Child ("If you touch my junk, I'm gonna have you arrested.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Old Sarge
The Schiavo case was very different from this one. In her situation, the question involved the removal of feeding/hydration from a patient. In this case, I'm assuming that the term "life support" in the article is a reference to other mechanical measures that are aimed at replacing the body's normal functions.

For anyone who might be offended by the questions I'm asking here, please note that there is an enormous distinction under any objective moral code between removing a patient's "life support" and starving them to death. If a society didn't have limits on the kinds of heroic efforts it would employ to keep people alive at all costs, we could theoretically keep everyone "alive" indefinitely.

29 posted on 08/13/2012 4:15:34 PM PDT by Alberta's Child ("If you touch my junk, I'm gonna have you arrested.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: PhatHead

You have my sympathy, and I absolutely understand your point about making decisions without any consideration for costs in the long run. But there is always going to be a limit to how far any medical treatment can go in terms of saving a person’s life. This is why, for example, there isn’t a single religious group on the planet whose moral theology includes an absolute mandate that a person must be kept on a mechanical life support system indefinitely, in the name of preserving human life.


30 posted on 08/13/2012 4:19:32 PM PDT by Alberta's Child ("If you touch my junk, I'm gonna have you arrested.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: CSM
Are they even allowed to do this on their own at their own expense?

That's an excellent question, and a great demonstration of why the legal mechanisms surrounding a government-run medical system can make it so dangerous. A government that legally prohibits anyone from paying the cost of medical care for themselves or their family members has no moral right to exist.

31 posted on 08/13/2012 4:22:24 PM PDT by Alberta's Child ("If you touch my junk, I'm gonna have you arrested.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

Of course, but you asked whether the parents might feel differently if they were paying the bill themselves. In my opinion they would not.

Your question had nothing to do with the “moral theology” of it, and neither does the story. Governments make these decisions based solely on dollars and cents, and that’s what happened here.

The further medical decisions move from the patients (say, to the IPAB,) the less likely they will be made with any moral considerations.

I suspect we agree on that.


32 posted on 08/13/2012 6:27:40 PM PDT by PhatHead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

Any government system must place such restrictions on the market. Remember, that was a key component of HillaryCare...

It is all about centralized control leading to equality of outcome. As a result, we must not ALLOW people to be free of any government restriction!

I don’t know for certain, but I would be confident in placing a bet that the restrictions are in place in the UK system.....


33 posted on 08/14/2012 6:02:43 AM PDT by CSM (Keeper of the Dave Ramsey Ping list. FReepmail me if you want your beeber stuned.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

I’d also like to point out that without more information I cannot clearly see the situation fully, however I was born nearly 3 mos early and was on breathing support for weeks. I don’t remember ;-) the specific technology, but it was very expensive in that time.

If we had the same system then that the UK has today, my bet is that I would not be living today. Hmm, maybe I better get out there and do more stuff to improve the world!


34 posted on 08/14/2012 6:07:35 AM PDT by CSM (Keeper of the Dave Ramsey Ping list. FReepmail me if you want your beeber stuned.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child; surroundedbyblue
1. I'm not joking at all.

Then that says something about sad about the state of your moral development. I hope that you can learn to approach the issue of the valuation of human life with an open mind and heart.

2. My point is a legitimate one.

The utilitarian argument rationalizing the state-sponsored murdered of a conscious 8 year old boy is never legitimate. This is despite the best efforts of this argument's most famous advocates: sociopaths like Stalin, Hitler, and Mao.

3. There's nothing wrong or irrational about discussing legitimate points about the costs (financial and others) of providing medical care in difficult (likely futile) cases?

Once one steps over the line of quantifying the material worth of an innocent child, they have committed the grave ethical error of objectifying human life. Also, the "futility" of this case was maintained only by those advocating for murder. Even someone who is totally morally bankrupt should be able to see see the potential for abuse if the organization responsible for paying for life sustaining healthcare are the exact same people deciding who lives and who dies. Before long, nearly everyone will be considered "futile".

4. Please cite me one piece of documented evidence to support a claim that it is somehow "conservative" to provide medical care indefinitely to a patient under any circumstances?

No one here is advocating that "medical care (be provided) indefinitely to a patient under any circumstances". That fallacious strawman argument aside; libertarians, communists, and anarchists are all in agreement that human life is worth little more than what it can produce. Conservatives stand alone in their ideology of treating all innocent human life as sacrosanct and worthy of basic medical care, such as keeping this child on life support so his lung can heal. See my profile page for an example of such efforts from the author of modern conservatism. I hope that you can approach these responses with the charity with which they are offered.

35 posted on 08/17/2012 6:30:47 PM PDT by Ronaldus Magnus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Ronaldus Magnus

Very well-said. Thank you


36 posted on 08/17/2012 6:37:27 PM PDT by surroundedbyblue (Live the message of Fatima - pray & do penance!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Ronaldus Magnus
This has nothing to do with the "worth" of anyone here. If you read the details of the article, you'll see that this is not a simple case of someone who is being fed and hydrated with a feeding tube, or is using mechanical means to support some basic life functions. The child is hooked up to machine that has taken over the function of his heart and lungs, which means this child would -- in all likelihood -- have already been declared clinically dead before this kind of technology existed. This is an intensive care treatment, which means (by definition) it is invasive, costly, and requires ongoing support of one or more organs. The very nature of intensive care is that since it can often effectively be used indefinitely to keep someone alive, it is only supposed to be used in cases where there is a likelihood of patient recovery. And yes -- this means someone must make an objective determination about the likelihood of a patient's recovery.

Again -- this is not about the "value of a life." It's about whether there is a legal or moral obligation to provide this kind of medical treatment ... which represents an expensive and limited "good" in cases like this ... indefinitely. While nobody likes to look at anything like this in financial terms, the reality is that financial constraints will often dictate courses of treatment in these cases. The doctors and medical staff aren't working for free, the hospital building wasn't constructed for free, the electric bills must be paid, and the life-saving equipment and drugs all cost money.

Any time you have a third party paying the medical bills, you've effectively surrendered a lot of authority to determine your preferred courses of treatment. And this holds true regardless of whether the third party is a government agency or a private insurance company.

37 posted on 08/17/2012 7:08:37 PM PDT by Alberta's Child ("If you touch my junk, I'm gonna have you arrested.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: markomalley
Outside of neonates, few patients ever recover from extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, and the longer it's used the less likely that recovery becomes. This isn't your typical life support, but full-on lung and heart life support. Apparently he was on it a full month before litigation even began, so there is really no hope here.

As far as a miracle from God is concerned I'll paraphrase from the pastor of the last church I attended: I don't want to impugn divine intervention, but there hasn't been a soul on earth that God hasn't called home. We pray for healing miracles because we want God to operate on our time table, not his.

38 posted on 08/18/2012 4:09:07 AM PDT by Melas (u)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

Well, I’m going to disagree with you there. ECMO isn’t going to keep anyone alive indefinitely. The path of least resistance here would have been to keep him on the machine until he passes, which honestly can’t be more than just a few weeks away. He’s already lived remarkably long on the machine.


39 posted on 08/18/2012 4:13:08 AM PDT by Melas (u)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Melas
Outside of neonates, few patients ever recover from extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, and the longer it's used the less likely that recovery becomes. This isn't your typical life support, but full-on lung and heart life support. Apparently he was on it a full month before litigation even began, so there is really no hope here.

As far as a miracle from God is concerned I'll paraphrase from the pastor of the last church I attended: I don't want to impugn divine intervention, but there hasn't been a soul on earth that God hasn't called home. We pray for healing miracles because we want God to operate on our time table, not his.

No argument with what you're saying.

The issue is not the futility of the care, in my opinion. The issue is who makes that determination.

In the case of State-sponsored healthcare, the determiner is the government (remember that the doctors in question had their salaries paid by the government)...with only the courts for appeal.

In the case of commercial insurers (remember that, in that case, the doctors fees were paid by the insurer), the determiner would be the insurance company...with only the state insurance oversight board...and then the courts...for appeal.

In a truly free market system, the determiner would be the patient...or, if the patient is incapacitated, the patient's family. If they wished to continue with objectively futile care, that is their business as long as they had the capacity to do so. If they were paying the tab and the attending physician refused to provide the care, they could simply find another physician who was willing to do so. Or the patient could decide that it is not worth making his/her family destitute for care that would, at best, extend the life a little while.

As you said, in this case, it was clearly futile. However, in a third party payer type system, will they change the standard for futility when resources become more scarce? (for example, 80 year old widow needs hip replacement...sorry, granny, we deem this futile, since you'll only last a few more years anyway...better to spend our limited resources on a healthy 20 or 30 something who has decades left)(for example, care for lung cancer is no longer authorized as you shouldn't have been smoking anyway)

40 posted on 08/18/2012 4:45:07 AM PDT by markomalley (Nothing emboldens the wicked so greatly as the lack of courage on the part of the good-Pope Leo XIII)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child; Melas
Well, I’m going to disagree with you there. ECMO isn’t going to keep anyone alive indefinitely. The path of least resistance here would have been to keep him on the machine until he passes, which honestly can’t be more than just a few weeks away. He’s already lived remarkably long on the machine.

That might have been the reasonable compromise, but as you stated and as I read in the posted article along with others, the child has shown no improvement, his heart and lungs are not functioning, his airways continued to be blocked and his condition was and is worsening not improving.

In some cases there comes a point in time when further extraordinary life support measures are simply futile – continuing the use of the ECMO machine might extend his physical life a few weeks or even months but eventually he will die with or without the life support; infections, bleeds and ultimately brain damage are all very real and not at all uncommon complications with extended use of ECMO. Keeping him "alive" only to face those further complications, some of which would be excruciatingly painful would IMO be cruel given the sad fact that his condition is going to be ultimately fatal no matter what is done.

That is the sad and heartbreaking reality. And while I empathize and sympathize with the parents, it seems to me that they are not accepting that reality. I can’t say that I blame them for not giving up hope, but on one hand they seem to acknowledge that there is nothing more that can be done for him medically except for keeping him alive by artificial means while they wait for a “divine miracle”, but on the other hand, since no miracle has yet taken place, they seem to be no more willing to accept God’s decision not to, by miracle, cure their child than they are those of the doctors who are telling them that despite all their best efforts and extraordinary measure, that their child is dying.

I would also suppose that hospitals do not have unlimited numbers of such machines or unlimited numbers of the highly trained people necessary to run them. Beyond the questions of cost and who is footing the bill, the issue may also be one of continued use of such a machine in a hopeless and ultimately terminal case may mean that someone with a better outcome does not have access to it.

I would ask the parents if they are comfortable knowing that another patient, perhaps a child on the waiting list for a heart-lung transplant with a very real chance of recovery, doesn’t have access to the machine that is keeping their child alive, but only for a few more weeks while they wait for a miracle that doesn’t appear is going to happen. I would also add that if their faith in God is so strong, that He could perform such a miracle even after life support is removed.

“We pray for healing miracles because we want God to operate on our time table, not his.”

Medical science and the technology of advanced life support have progressed to the point where many people who were once hopeless and terminal can be saved. But as far as the advancement in medicine has progressed, the reality is that not everyone can be saved. That’s not a failure of medical science; that is just the reality.

41 posted on 08/18/2012 5:37:14 AM PDT by MD Expat in PA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: MD Expat in PA

Yes but you must understand that if they had left him on the machine, there would be victory rejoicing on Free Republic and glorying in the remembrance of the Free Republic Terry threads.


42 posted on 08/18/2012 5:40:24 AM PDT by bert ((K.E. N.P. N.C. +12 ..... Present failure and impending death yield irrational action))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: markomalley
But the judge said that “with a heavy heart” he had to agree to the hospital’s request to withdraw life-sustaining treatment as doctors and nurses agreed that all further interventions would be futile.

Given the circumstances I've had to go through the last week, I think I'm uniquely qualified to speak to this specific point.

My first brother who is 7 years younger than I suffered a massive brain aneurysm last Friday, August 10th. When the Paramedics arrived, he was not breathing and barely had a pulse. Somehow - miraculously - they managed to revive him and get him to the hospital.

The first hospital they took him to had no trauma facilities, so he was taken to a second hospital which had them. The second miracle was that he survived the trip(s) to the two hospitals.

By the time I arrived at the second hospital, approximately 90 minutes after his aneurysm he'd already received a second cat scan and two neurologists on duty read both of them.

My brother was literally dead by the time he hit the floor in his home. Both neurologists told us it was a miracle he was able to be revived at all. His aneurysm was in the worst place possible, deep inside his brain stem, where it meets the brain. Inoperable. By 4 pm last Friday afternoon we were given the news he would not survive, the aneurysm was still bleeding and choking off the blood supply to his brain.

As I, my sister and my youngest brother spoke with the doctors, they were very clear in telling us that very few survived his type of aneurysm, and what they expected would happen overnight to him as his brain's blood supply was choked off and eventually stopped.

I was with my brother when his reflexes shut down, and he stopped breathing on his own. All testing the doctors did showed that his brain had stopped functioning, and the only thing keeping him "going" was the ventilator and the drugs they used to keep his heart going.

He was no longer able to sustain himself in any way. His body temperature dropped on its own and the time came when the doctor's declared him deceased. The doctors did everything they could to save him, of that I'm convinced because I was there.

My brother was laid to rest on Thursday.

Now how is this relevant to this specific case? Simple. If the boy's heart is beating on it's own with no medical assistance and his reflexes are still functioning (ie: prick his hand with a needle and he reflexes on his own) then he is still alive and there is still hope.

If the doctors in this case were to prove death, there are a series of tests that are performed three times, six hours apart over a twenty-four hour period that confirm death. I've seen doctors perform these tests. If they haven't been performed on this young boy then they need to be to confirm whether he is alive and still "in there" or if he's dead. Any positive response to those tests would indicate hope for this young boy.

God bless these parents, please keep them and their son from all harm Lord, and above all else, Your will, Your way, Your time.

43 posted on 08/18/2012 6:06:06 AM PDT by usconservative (When The Ballot Box No Longer Counts, The Ammunition Box Does. (What's In Your Ammo Box?))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Melas
Well, I’m going to disagree with you there. ECMO isn’t going to keep anyone alive indefinitely. The path of least resistance here would have been to keep him on the machine until he passes, which honestly can’t be more than just a few weeks away. He’s already lived remarkably long on the machine.

If that's the case, then we don't really disagree at all. I was under the impression that ECMO could sustain someone for much longer than a few weeks, since I couldn't imagine why anyone (either the family or the hospital) would make a big deal about the situation if it were just a matter of weeks we're talking about.

44 posted on 08/18/2012 6:28:39 AM PDT by Alberta's Child ("If you touch my junk, I'm gonna have you arrested.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: bert
Baloney. Terri Schiavo was not on any form of "life support."

See the detailed description laid out in Post #43. Nothing of this sort ever happened in that case.

45 posted on 08/18/2012 6:34:18 AM PDT by Alberta's Child ("If you touch my junk, I'm gonna have you arrested.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: usconservative

That’s a very sobering, compelling story — with some good information that relates to this thread. Condolences to your entire family on your loss.


46 posted on 08/18/2012 6:39:47 AM PDT by Alberta's Child ("If you touch my junk, I'm gonna have you arrested.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

——— Terri Schiavo was not on any form of “life support.”-——

Except a feeding tube. Her brain was dead and would not permit body functions necessary to allow her to function and therefore to live.


47 posted on 08/18/2012 7:34:11 AM PDT by bert ((K.E. N.P. N.C. +12 ..... Present failure and impending death yield irrational action))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

Agree to a point. However, even in the freest of markets, situations can and do arise where money isn’t the only determinate. My mother had a surgery rescheduled at the very last minute after she’d already been sedated (but not anesthetized) in pro-op. The surgery itself was needed for a more emergent operation.

Even a large hospital isn’t likely to have more than one or possibly two available ecmo machines. What do you do when your futile case doesn’t want to let the machine go, when it could potentially help actually save a life?

While I do sympathize with families, I’m more inclined to trust in the physician to make these determinations. I’ve been there myself. My father survived a week after a cerebral hemorrhage. Every day I thought I saw progress and genuinly believed he was coming back. However, in retrospect after 15 years have passed, I realize that I saw what I wanted to see. Family members are probably the worst determiners in end of life situations.


48 posted on 08/18/2012 7:36:57 AM PDT by Melas (u)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: MD Expat in PA

I do agree with you. Keeping him on the machine is akin to saying that God just needs more time. It just doesn’t work that way.

I just addressed your concerns about the limited number of machines in another post btw.


49 posted on 08/18/2012 7:39:40 AM PDT by Melas (u)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

You convinced the judges that it should be ok to let the doctors help you kill your child while it was still inside your body.

Now you find it offensive that they say your doctors can kill your child for his own (the greater) good?

That slope was slippery from the first step!


50 posted on 08/18/2012 7:55:17 AM PDT by Delta 21 (Oh Crap !! Did I say that out loud ??!??)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-65 next last

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