NationStates Jolt Archive

The baby, named Charlotte, has been in hospital care since being born premature 11 months ago. Born 26 weeks premature and weighing just one pound, Charlotte required ventilation for her first three months of life.

Charlotte's parents feel their daughter has a real chance to survive and they want a judge to support their plea to force doctors to do everything possible to keep Charlotte alive.

The doctors say it's "against the child's interests" to let her live, because she has no chance of surviving infancy and will never be able to leave the hospital.

Doctors in the UK have asked a High Court judge to decide whether they have to keep a desperately ill baby alive if it stops breathing for a fourth time.

I'm interested into opening up this discussion along side of the abortion topic. What are the opinions of Pro-Life & Pro-Choice advocates concerning this unique situation.

Most of you have heard my viewpoint about placing the decision of abortion into the hands of a court - I proposed a court hearing which allows a Gaurdian Ad Litem to speak for the child - while this is not about a woman's right to abort her child IT IS THE EXTREME OPPOSITE and can be applied with the same discussions.

This is a really horrible situation. The doctors say this baby has incurable heart, lung, and brain damage, and that she feels nothing but pain now. They're not asking to kill her, but to deliberately not attempt to revive her if she stops breathing again. She's been alive 10-11 months since she was prematurely born, all of that in intensive care.

I'm really pro-life in every sphere (abortion, capital punishment, suicide, euthanasia), but this one is nearly as close to my personal decision line as I've ever seen. I just don't know what I think about this one.

The baby, named Charlotte, has been in hospital care since being born premature 11 months ago. Born 26 weeks premature and weighing just one pound, Charlotte required ventilation for her first three months of life.

Charlotte's parents feel their daughter has a real chance to survive and they want a judge to support their plea to force doctors to do everything possible to keep Charlotte alive.

The doctors say it's "against the child's interests" to let her live, because she has no chance of surviving infancy and will never be able to leave the hospital.

Doctors in the UK have asked a High Court judge to decide whether they have to keep a desperately ill baby alive if it stops breathing for a fourth time.

I'm interested into opening up this discussion along side of the abortion topic. What are the opinions of Pro-Life & Pro-Choice advocates concerning this unique situation.

Most of you have heard my viewpoint about placing the decision of abortion into the hands of a court - I proposed a court hearing which allows a Gaurdian Ad Litem to speak for the child - while this is not about a woman's right to abort her child IT IS THE EXTREME OPPOSITE and can be applied with the same discussions.

Having seen several "miraculous" recoveries in my life, I'm a firm advocate of "where there's life, there's hope." :)

The parents of a seriously ill premature baby want her to have "every chance of survival", a court has heard.
Charlotte Wyatt weighed just one pound when she was born 11 months ago and has serious heart and lung problems.

Doctors believe her quality of life will be terrible, and want to let her die if she stops breathing again.

But David Wolfe, counsel for the parents, said they wanted the court to "hang on" to any real prospect for Charlotte.

He added they would like to look forward to taking their daughter out "so that she can have the feel of fresh air on her skin".

Darren, 32, and Debbie, 23, believe that, as she has survived this far, Charlotte must be given every assistance to help her live.

But doctors say she will not survive beyond infancy because her lungs are so severely damaged.

Charlotte was born when her mother was 26 weeks pregnant, has never left hospital and is fed through a tube as she cannot suck from a bottle.

She also needs a constant supply of oxygen.



It has all been very difficult for us

Debbie Wyatt, Charlotte's mother


The dilemma doctors face over denying treatment

David Lock, counsel for the hospital, part of the Portsmouth Hospitals NHS Trust, said a doctor had said she was "living in a plastic box" and that her life would be "dominated by pain and suffering".

Mr Lock summarised the trust consultants' findings by saying: "They are of the view that Charlotte has life-limiting conditions and that, despite their best efforts, she has no feelings other than continuing pain.

"Her quality of life is both terrible and permanent and they cannot see a way in which it would significantly improve."

He said one doctor had described her as "permanently sedated, living in a plastic box with a tube up her nose and blasted with gas".

Mr Lock added a consultant paediatric neurologist had said Charlotte "has no visual awareness and does not respond to sound... she does not respond to being cuddled and demonstrates no awareness of familiar persons."

David Wolfe, counsel for the Mr and Mrs Wyatt, said this part of the consultant's report was a matter of controversy.


Dr E, a specialist in paediatric respiratory medicine, who took over supervising Charlotte's care in August, said she was suffering from "the worst case of chronic lung disease I have ever seen".

The doctor added that Charlotte had lung scarring after having life-saving ventilation five times.


Suffering


Portsmouth Hospitals NHS Trust says that while parents can decide what treatment is given to their child, they cannot insist on inappropriate treatment which would bring more suffering than benefits.

Ahead of the hearing, Mrs Wyatt told The Times newspaper: "It has all been very difficult for us.

"I just hope the judge makes the right decision. We want to cling to any chance we have."


Cases such as this are very rare, and are usually heard in private.

But, earlier this week, Mr and Mrs Wyatt - both committed Christians from Buckland, Portsmouth - were given permission for their case to be heard in public.

Trust managers agreed the case should be discussed openly so that it could reassure the public about the treatment it offered and the decisions it made.


At the preliminary hearing, the parents stressed that they maintained a good relationship with the trust, even though they disagreed with its view that Charlotte should not be ventilated if she needed it.

Mr Wolfe told the judge: "They are entirely happy with, and grateful for, the treatment which Charlotte has received so far from the trust and its staff."

The judge has banned the media from identifying the individual medical staff caring for Charlotte and the independent expert witnesses who are to be called to give evidence.

The case continues.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3701492.stm

The doctors are probably acting in the parents' best interests here. If the child is suffering from such pain as they describe, and has no chance of surviving out of infancy, then the humane thing to do, for both the suffering child and the suffering parents, would be to let it pass on. But it really is the parents' choice. If they are willing to continue paying to keep their child alive, then the doctors should respect their decision and do everything within their power to achieve that end.

The baby, named Charlotte, has been in hospital care since being born premature 11 months ago. Born 26 weeks premature and weighing just one pound, Charlotte required ventilation for her first three months of life.

Charlotte's parents feel their daughter has a real chance to survive and they want a judge to support their plea to force doctors to do everything possible to keep Charlotte alive.

The doctors say it's "against the child's interests" to let her live, because she has no chance of surviving infancy and will never be able to leave the hospital.

Doctors in the UK have asked a High Court judge to decide whether they have to keep a desperately ill baby alive if it stops breathing for a fourth time.

I'm interested into opening up this discussion along side of the abortion topic. What are the opinions of Pro-Life & Pro-Choice advocates concerning this unique situation.

Most of you have heard my viewpoint about placing the decision of abortion into the hands of a court - I proposed a court hearing which allows a Gaurdian Ad Litem to speak for the child - while this is not about a woman's right to abort her child IT IS THE EXTREME OPPOSITE and can be applied with the same discussions.

That is EXACTLY like my birth, even the numbers correlate precisely! Of course she has a chance, despite my three months with a constant 24/7 sound of 90 decibel I am not a wacko. Despite internal bleedings in my brain I make one of best results in my class. Despite being born without fully developed muscles I can walk and move without problems, it is a disgrace that the doctors are even considering that alternative (although I may add that my first year was quite miraculeus, my parents didn't go out with a name until I was 8 months old. However, there is still a chance for her and I think she has the right to get it).

And I don't care about the doctors. They said that I would have to spend my life in wheelchair, that I would at most be 150 centimetres (right now I am at 180, still growing) and that I probably would have to go to special schools, luckily they aren't always right...

The parents feel the child will live, while an outside party believe it won't.

The opposite way of looking at this, referring to the abortion debate, would be the parents wanting to end the life of the child when someone else believed that child should surivive. In that case - the idea becomes a matter of choice instead of a concern for the child.

This is what I would want a Pro-Choice advocate to understand - there is more than a personnal choice involved here, you have to make accounts for the right of the child.

the child is already alive. Whatever life it has now are better than non at all, and the doctors, wishing to end it, are not passive in this effort (proof: they are going to court on this). The child as a right to live, and the doctors have an obligation to assist.

Then the dilema against abortion is to convince Pro-Choice that the baby is alive.

I think that's why they created those terrible images of aborted fetuses that so many of us do not want to ever have to see again.

Those pictures do not show the lifeless slug-like parasite that a Pro-Choice advocate would want you to believe.

If I want to come to some middle ground with your beliefs then I would have to argue the need to lower the time allowed, before terminating a life is legal.

The doctors aren't going to KILL the baby, so saying

Whatever life it has now are better than non at all, and the doctors, wishing to end it

Isn't quite true.

If it was a 90 year old man that had extensive brain damage, lung injury, etc, etc, would people get mad if the doctors took him off of life support? (If there wasn't any next of kin).

This baby is NOT alive. The machines are living for it. I feel nothing but pity for the poor creature, being kept in pain and barely living on machines for the first 11 months of his life. My son was walking at 10mths old...this creature doesn't MOVE.

It's a hard call to make, regardless, and my heart goes out to the parents.

The doctors aren't going to KILL the baby, so saying



Isn't quite true.

If it was a 90 year old man that had extensive brain damage, lung injury, etc, etc, would people get mad if the doctors took him off of life support? (If there wasn't any next of kin).

This baby is NOT alive. The machines are living for it. I feel nothing but pity for the poor creature, being kept in pain and barely living on machines for the first 11 months of his life. My son was walking at 10mths old...this creature doesn't MOVE.

It's a hard call to make, regardless, and my heart goes out to the parents.
I didn't walk until I was 2 years old, and then barely. I think that eleven months in cuveuse (right spelling?) perhaps is a bit long for a premature, but is too easy today to say that prematures aren't going to survive, I have seen the consequensces of too hasty decisions...

it's the parents' baby, so it's their choice. if they want to allow their baby to die peacefully then the State has no business trying to stop them; conversely, if they want to force the baby to continue suffering and die slowly and painfully then the State has no power to stop them, so long as the parents don't expect the State to pay for the care that prolongs the child's agony.

it's the parents' baby, so it's their choice. if they want to allow their baby to die peacefully then the State has no business trying to stop them; conversely, if they want to force the baby to continue suffering and die slowly and painfully then the State has no power to stop them, so long as the parents don't expect the State to pay for the care that prolongs the child's agony.
Now we come to the delicate matter of financing. My parents couldn't afford to keep me alive, uckily the state did pay. Every day when I wake up I feel grateful to them for not giving in to the doctors and officials during those horrible 6 weeks when there wasn't any reason to name me every day when I wake up. Today you can save the majority of born prematures (although the majorit means those are at least 29 weeks old), the care of babies like me have improved a lot since I was born (1990), how big should the chances be before the state makes funding for this a policy?

it's the parents' baby, so it's their choice. if they want to allow their baby to die peacefully then the State has no business trying to stop them; conversely, if they want to force the baby to continue suffering and die slowly and painfully then the State has no power to stop them, so long as the parents don't expect the State to pay for the care that prolongs the child's agony.

And by focusing on the choices you have yet again overlooked the most important individual involved. Because outside of a courtroom, that individual does not have a choice.

right now its logic v emotion, the parents are being fools at this, its like the asinine chavo debate, that woman should've been let die long ago, and they need to let this go. it was born ~3 months premature and has been in plastic box for 11 months? it has had to have been revived 5 times already? just let the kid die already

And by focusing on the choices you have yet again overlooked the most important individual involved. Because outside of a courtroom, that individual does not have a choice.
that "individual" is not able to make any choices at all, and you aren't proposing that we allow it to make the decision for itself anyway. you are proposing that the STATE make a choice that YOU PERSONALLY think is best for the individual, and you have no idea what that individual might choose if it were able. i believe the parents are the only ones with the right to make that choice for their child, not some random court, and the legal system in general agrees with me.

even if this baby were a child of 10, it would not be allowed to make a choice for itself as an individual. children of 10 are not allowed to make their own medical decisions, they are not able to consent to anything under the law, they cannot own property, and they most certainly cannot make life-and-death judgments for themselves. their parents are the people legally empowered to make those decisions. or do you propose that the State own all children, and parents be required to comply with the State rather than raising their child as they see fit?

Now we come to the delicate matter of financing. My parents couldn't afford to keep me alive, uckily the state did pay. Every day when I wake up I feel grateful to them for not giving in to the doctors and officials during those horrible 6 weeks when there wasn't any reason to name me every day when I wake up. Today you can save the majority of born prematures (although the majorit means those are at least 29 weeks old), the care of babies like me have improved a lot since I was born (1990), how big should the chances be before the state makes funding for this a policy?
your situation was different form what i cna deduce. you said there was no reason to name you for 8 months, so that implies at 8 months there was a chance for you to survive. this thing has been "alive" for 11 months, and its not improving

that "individual" is not able to make any choices at all, and you aren't proposing that we allow it to make the decision for itself anyway. you are proposing that the STATE make a choice that YOU PERSONALLY think is best for the individual, and you have no idea what that individual might choose if it were able. i believe the parents are the only ones with the right to make that choice for their child, not some random court, and the legal system in general agrees with me.

even if this baby were a child of 10, it would not be allowed to make a choice for itself as an individual. children of 10 are not allowed to make their own medical decisions, they are not able to consent to anything under the law, they cannot own property, and they most certainly cannot make life-and-death judgments for themselves. their parents are the people legally empowered to make those decisions. or do you propose that the State own all children, and parents be required to comply with the State rather than raising their child as they see fit?
and do you propose the kids emotional parents and probably some wacky supporters are more qualified and are of sound enough mind to decide what would be best for their child?

Well if they think that there's a hope and it's their baby and they're paying...

Is this like the Pharmacist discussion?

and do you propose the kids emotional parents and probably some wacky supporters are more qualified and are of sound enough mind to decide what would be best for their child?
ahh, then let's apply that to all situations. the parents are obviously too close to the situation, far too emotional, to make decisions like what religion to raise their child into, where to send their child to school, what to feed their child, how to teach their child about sex, when to let their child date, how to teach their child to drive...

obviously their feelings about the child will make it impossible for them to make objectively sound decisions about the child's welfare, so let's just cut out the whole "parenting" deal completely. the state will raise all children with equal standards of practicality and objective safety in mind.

ahh, then let's apply that to all situations. the parents are obviously too close to the situation, far too emotional, to make decisions like what religion to raise their child into, where to send their child to school, what to feed their child, how to teach their child about sex, when to let their child date, how to teach their child to drive...

obviously their feelings about the child will make it impossible for them to make objectively sound decisions about the child's welfare, so let's just cut out the whole "parenting" deal completely. the state will raise all children with equal standards of practicality and objective safety in mind.
your argument is far too general, the question IS are the parents qualified enough or of sound enough mind to make THIS decision about their child.

Imagining for a moment that the baby has absolutely no hope - so? let the kid live for as long as she can. Why let the kid starve to death because she's damaged? Just look after her until she pegs out.

your argument is far too general, the question IS are the parents qualified enough or of sound enough mind to make THIS decision about their child.

Are the parents qualified to make a decision about whether to let their kid die? What qualifications do you need? The medical situation is irrelevant - if they want the kid to live as long as possible, then that's fine, let the kid live as long as possible. What argument is there for letting the kid die?

your situation was different form what i cna deduce. you said there was no reason to name you for 8 months, so that implies at 8 months there was a chance for you to survive. this thing has been "alive" for 11 months, and its not improving

You are right, this case is the most extreme I have ever heard of, eleven months and she still can't breathe. The thing is that there has to be some sort of rule for prematures, a principle. Of course the parents can't make logical judgements, but can the hospital? To keep someone alive ike that costs HUGE amounts of many, for me it was about 100 000 swedish crowns a week (I don't know the current exchange course), can stat officials handle the quetion logically? Even when the doctors finally said that I was going to make it representants from the county tried to convince my parents to pull it out by moral reasons, it cost too much for taxpayers and who knew how long I would take to recover? There isn't a simple answer to the question, but of corse it all gets easier if you don't have a taxfunded health-care...

Are the parents qualified to make a decision about whether to let their kid die? What qualifications do you need? The medical situation is irrelevant - if they want the kid to live as long as possible, then that's fine, let the kid live as long as possible. What argument is there for letting the kid die?
theres the key, the kid would NOT be living. he has already been revived FIVE times and is being kept alive ARTIFICIALLY. the ONLY argument here is to not resuscitate him again if he stops breathing, which i highly agree with

where is your argument to keeping him alive? not letting him live, KEEPING him alive.

your argument is far too general, the question IS are the parents qualified enough or of sound enough mind to make THIS decision about their child.
are you kidding? the choice of religion is (according to religious people) far more important than this situation; this is an issue of the physical body of a child, while choosing the wrong religion could cause that child's immortal soul to be thrown into a torture dimension for all eternity! if parents are considered able to make the decision of which religious tradition in which to raise their offspring, then why would they not be allowed to make decisions about their child's medical care?

I feel really awful for her. :( I think the deciding factor is whether or not she still has a reasonable chance of leading a happy life; it sounds to me like she doesn't.

I think the government should play as little a role in this situation as possible; but if an objective medical expert rules that she won't be able to live a normal life, I think the parents' wishes should be overruled out of pure mercy. It isn't exactly unprecedented for parents who take unnecessary risks concerning their children's lives to lose their authority over them - and in this case, judging by the information presented in the article, to keep Charlotte alive despite nearly inevitable death would be borderline-torture.

EDIT:

are you kidding? the choice of religion is (according to religious people) far more important than this situation; this is an issue of the physical body of a child, while choosing the wrong religion could cause that child's immortal soul to be thrown into a torture dimension for all eternity! if parents are considered able to make the decision of which religious tradition in which to raise their offspring, then why would they not be allowed to make decisions about their child's medical care?

Because 1) true religious faith is the individual's decision, and 2) the government has no right to legislate for or against choices, such as religion, without tangible effects.

that "individual" is not able to make any choices at all, and you aren't proposing that we allow it to make the decision for itself anyway. you are proposing that the STATE make a choice that YOU PERSONALLY think is best for the individual, and you have no idea what that individual might choose if it were able. i believe the parents are the only ones with the right to make that choice for their child, not some random court, and the legal system in general agrees with me.

even if this baby were a child of 10, it would not be allowed to make a choice for itself as an individual. children of 10 are not allowed to make their own medical decisions, they are not able to consent to anything under the law, they cannot own property, and they most certainly cannot make life-and-death judgments for themselves. their parents are the people legally empowered to make those decisions. or do you propose that the State own all children, and parents be required to comply with the State rather than raising their child as they see fit?

:headbang:

Duh. Generally children under the age of 12 need council for themselves in courtrooms, because they cannot speak for themselves. That is the purpose of appearing in court and that is the purpose of a Guardian Ad Litem... even it were the 100 year old brain damaged man... that council is there to speak in their defense.

The same should be established in the case of an abortion, because Pro-Choice disnounces the rights of the unborn child. Pro-Life does not want to take away rights, it wants to grant them. The confliction comes from one side refusing to acknowledge any rights other than their own.

Could it be possible that keeping the child alive if it only feels pain is a form of child abuse? I don't know the actual legal definitions of child abuse, but it seems like there might be something along those lines against keeping the baby alive.

You are right, this case is the most extreme I have ever heard of, eleven months and she still can't breathe. The thing is that there has to be some sort of rule for prematures, a principle. Of course the parents can't make logical judgements, but can the hospital? To keep someone alive ike that costs HUGE amounts of many, for me it was about 100 000 swedish crowns a week (I don't know the current exchange course), can stat officials handle the quetion logically? Even when the doctors finally said that I was going to make it representants from the county tried to convince my parents to pull it out by moral reasons, it cost too much for taxpayers and who knew how long I would take to recover? There isn't a simple answer to the question, but of corse it all gets easier if you don't have a taxfunded health-care...
why would the cost affect the decision of the hospital? they arnt paying it. unless the hospitals pay people for doing operations on them in britain

are you kidding? the choice of religion is (according to religious people) far more important than this situation; this is an issue of the physical body of a child, while choosing the wrong religion could cause that child's immortal soul to be thrown into a torture dimension for all eternity! if parents are considered able to make the decision of which religious tradition in which to raise their offspring, then why would they not be allowed to make decisions about their child's medical care?
:headbang:
Like most normal people, my parents ENCOURAGED me to follow in their own beliefs. Others force religion down the child's throat. Even more are simply born into a world dominated by the family's belief system and can not comprehend questioning that structure. Pro_choice completely disregards any of this, because Pro-Choice demands that the child does not deserve personal rights.

are you kidding? the choice of religion is (according to religious people) far more important than this situation; this is an issue of the physical body of a child, while choosing the wrong religion could cause that child's immortal soul to be thrown into a torture dimension for all eternity! if parents are considered able to make the decision of which religious tradition in which to raise their offspring, then why would they not be allowed to make decisions about their child's medical care?
in a battle of logic v religion, logic wins by default because RELIGION IS NOT FUCKING LOGICAL

why would the cost affect the decision of the hospital? they arnt paying it. unless the hospitals pay people for doing operations on them in britain
In Sweden the public hospitals get an anual budget. 89-91 was a baby-boom in Sweden and my county was already running low, I don't think that would have been suggested today, but the conjuncture can always change.

theres the key, the kid would NOT be living. he has already been revived FIVE times and is being kept alive ARTIFICIALLY. the ONLY argument here is to not resuscitate him again if he stops breathing, which i highly agree with

where is your argument to keeping him alive? not letting him live, KEEPING him alive.

Her... keeping Her alive. And the argument is that the parents, understandably, want the kid to be alive, and we can do it. So why not?

:headbang:

Duh. Generally children under the age of 12 need council for themselves in courtrooms, because they cannot speak for themselves. That is the purpose of appearing in court and that is the purpose of a Guardian Ad Litem... even it were the 100 year old brain damaged man... that council is there to speak in their defense.

The same should be established in the case of an abortion, because Pro-Choice disnounces the rights of the unborn child. Pro-Life does not want to take away rights, it wants to grant them. The confliction comes from one side refusing to acknowledge any rights other than their own.
wrong. children ONLY have their own council in court when their case is in direct opposition to their parents. if a child is accused of a crime, for instance, their PARENTS must be present during questioning, and a guardian ad litem never enters the situation unless one of the parents is considered to be embroiled in the situation. the lawyer representing a child has a very special code of ethics, and is generally viewed as employed by the PARENTS, who make all the decisions about the child's wishes when speaking to the lawyer.

again, a guardian ad litem or other court-appointed person is only brought in when there are cases of abuse, neglect, or other matters where the parents are seen as the cause of damage to the child. in matters of medical care, parents legally speak for their child.

a child cannot legally make ANY decisions on their medical care, only an adult can do that. whether that adult is court appointed or the child's parents is the only issue for debate; at NO POINT is a child EVER allowed to make decisions about their own critical medical care. saying that the court-appointed guardian is speaking for the child but their parents are not is silly; you can't prove that, and, in any event, in neither case is the child speaking for herself.

:headbang:
Like most normal people, my parents ENCOURAGED me to follow in their own beliefs. Others force religion down the child's throat. Even more are simply born into a world dominated by the family's belief system and can not comprehend questioning that structure. Pro_choice completely disregards any of this, because Pro-Choice demands that the child does not deserve personal rights.
If someone should "own" a child, who are most fitted for it, the government or the parents?

in a battle of logic v religion, logic wins by default because RELIGION IS NOT FUCKING LOGICAL

It isn't good logic to say that logical things always beat illogical things.

A handgun has no special logicality about it, but in a battle between a man with logic and a man with a handgun, I'd go for the handgun. Also truth isn't always logical, and truth beats logic any day.

Could it be possible that keeping the child alive if it only feels pain is a form of child abuse? I don't know the actual legal definitions of child abuse, but it seems like there might be something along those lines against keeping the baby alive.

The whole point of a child abuse case is to keep the child safe. You can look at this as if the doctor's are trying to keep the child safe from the physical pain she is feeling or you can look at this as the doctors are refusing to help keep the child alive. Knowing enough doctors, I can say that most of them, instead of making a greater effort, will take away the child's life only because it is the SIMPLEST solution for them.

in a battle of logic v religion, logic wins by default because RELIGION IS NOT FUCKING LOGICAL
keep in mind: i am not religious, and i believe religion is dangerous and harmful fiction that causes irreperable damage when taught to children. you are preaching to the choir, and missing my point entirely. re-read my post, keeping in mind that i personally think religion is pure fiction.

The whole point of a child abuse case is to keep the child safe. You can look at this as if the doctor's are trying to keep the child safe from the physical pain she is feeling or you can look at this as the doctors are refusing to help keep the child alive. Knowing enough doctors, I can say that most of them would take away the child's life only because it is the EASIEST solution.

Alright then.

I'm all for practicality so the easiest solution usually appeals to me. Of course, if this were my child, I'd probably be saying the hell with practicality, but that isn't the case here.

But, if the parents are choosing to have the child kept alive, and they are paying for it (in whatever way the healthcare system works there), then the doctors need to do the job they are getting paid for, and need to attempt to keep the child alive.

Her... keeping Her alive. And the argument is that the parents, understandably, want the kid to be alive, and we can do it. So why not?of course its physically possible, but is it a pheasible decision?

It isn't good logic to say that logical things always beat illogical things.

A handgun has no special logicality about it, but in a battle between a man with logic and a man with a handgun, I'd go for the handgun. Also truth isn't always logical, and truth beats logic any day.
good good, now try for more random, irrelevant posts

of course its physically possible, but is it a pheasible decision?

what do you mean by pheasible?

Do you mean feasible? because that pretty much means "physically possible".
What do you find infeasible about it?

keep in mind: i am not religious, and i believe religion is dangerous and harmful fiction that causes irreperable damage when taught to children. you are preaching to the choir, and missing my point entirely. re-read my post, keeping in mind that i personally think religion is pure fiction.
still relevant

I really think that it's the parent's descision. They want her alive, so they should be given this. If the Doctors kill her now then it's unlawful murder(in other words, as it goes against the wish of the parents they should be jailed).

This is rediculous. They're doctors for gods sake. They're suppossed to do everything they can to keep her alive. Not try to kill her!

good good, now try for more random, irrelevant posts

is it less relevant to point out that you are wrong than for you to say things that are wrong?

what do you mean by pheasible?

Do you mean feasible? because that pretty much means "physically possible".
What do you find infeasible about it?
im using feasible in its logical definition

I really think that it's the parent's descision. They want her alive, so they should be given this. If the Doctors kill her now then it's unlawful murder(in other words, as it goes against the wish of the parents they should be jailed).

This is rediculous. They're doctors for gods sake. They're suppossed to do everything they can to keep her alive. Not try to kill her!

There's an arguable difference between killing and not keeping alive.

I really think that it's the parent's descision. They want her alive, so they should be given this. If the Doctors kill her now then it's unlawful murder(in other words, as it goes against the wish of the parents they should be jailed).

This is rediculous. They're doctors for gods sake. They're suppossed to do everything they can to keep her alive. Not try to kill her!
they have been doing everything to keep her alive, for nearly a year, they have revived her 5 times already

wrong. children ONLY have their own council in court when their case is in direct opposition to their parents. if a child is accused of a crime, for instance, their PARENTS must be present during questioning, and a guardian ad litem never enters the situation unless one of the parents is considered to be embroiled in the situation. the lawyer representing a child has a very special code of ethics, and is generally viewed as employed by the PARENTS, who make all the decisions about the child's wishes when speaking to the lawyer.

again, a guardian ad litem or other court-appointed person is only brought in when there are cases of abuse, neglect, or other matters where the parents are seen as the cause of damage to the child. in matters of medical care, parents legally speak for their child.

a child cannot legally make ANY decisions on their medical care, only an adult can do that. whether that adult is court appointed or the child's parents is the only issue for debate; at NO POINT is a child EVER allowed to make decisions about their own critical medical care. saying that the court-appointed guardian is speaking for the child but their parents are not is silly; you can't prove that, and, in any event, in neither case is the child speaking for herself.

:headbang:

Wrong. There are Guardian Ad Litems used in divorce cases when both parents want custody of their child. My neice had her own council. The lawyer did not take into the considerations of what was best for the parents, the lawyer considers which is best for her.

Your ignoring the point. The court offers to give them their voice - it does not balance the already appossing views, it creates a third. Your Pro-Choice opinions completely ignores the fact that the child has a right to even be allowed a lawyer. You wish for me to side with a belief that this is only a control issue. When I want you to ignore the selfishness of that and consider what else is at stake.

im using feasible in its logical definition

In its logical definition, what does feasible mean?

this isnt a case about the babys right to live
its about the baby's right to DIE

this poor child is being artificially kept alive so that her every waking moment will be one of suffering

her parents, in their overwhelming grief over the fate of their child, are selfishly keeping her in torment

no priest, minister, rabbi, mullah, whatever would object to not resusitating this child the next time she goes in to respiratory arrest. she IS dying, she WILL die and soon. there is nothing to be done for this poor child.

we need courts in cases like this to take the decision out of the hands of the parents who are incapable of doing what obviously needs to be done. the doctors are not trying to save money, they are trying to save a little girl months of pain that will inevitably lead to her death.

a baby is not a suitcase to be done with however the "owner" decides. she has her own rights and one of them should be the right to die in her own time.

In its logical definition, what does feasible mean?
feasible as in , is it logical

If someone should "own" a child, who are most fitted for it, the government or the parents?
You mistakingly believe that I find the courts are better suited for the child's needs instead of the parents. You are simply not understanding what I am saying. This isn't about control. This isn't about the right choices. This is about giving a voice to someone that cannot speak for themselves.

You cannot declare individual rights and then decide who gets to have them. If you are in an accident that leaves you in a coma, in legal matters, you will need someone to speak for you. That council will not side with anyone else's viewpoints, they create a communication which best supports you. In the case of this baby, depending on what evidence is there, the Gaurdian Ad Litem will either present a communication that the child seeks to live or wishes to die. My POINT for at least one of you :headbang: is that the court GIVES THEM THEIR RIGHTS. Even if you are left in a vegetative state the acknowledgement that you still have RIGHTS must be made valid.

feasible as in , is it logical

OK. Never heard that word used like that before.

Well no, it isn't logical. But so what? Wearing clothes isn't always logical. Smoking is never logical. Sexual mores are on the wholes enormously illogical. What of it?

You cannot declare individual rights and then decide who gets to have them. If you are in an accident that leaves you in a coma, in legal matters, you will need someone to speak for you. That council will not side with anyone else's viewpoints, they create a communication which best supports you. In the case of this baby, depending on what evidence is there, the Gaurdian Ad Litem will either present a communication that the child seeks to live or wishes to die. My POINT for at least one of you :headbang: is that the court GIVES THEM THEIR RIGHTS. Even if you are left in a vegetative state the acknowledgement that you still have RIGHTS must be made valid.

As in what a spouse. You overlook one thing. A spouse can kind of know what their spouse wants to live and to die.

You can't speak for the unborn as they don't know.

Hey I got an idea.

Why don't you pay for the all the expenses since you feel the courts have to keep this child alive.

What you wont? Gee what a surprise.

It's quite easy to spout morality when you don't have to pay for it.

Sorry I have heard about the "morality" police in Saudi Arabia. I don't want that here.

The Doctors should help the parents make an informed decession as to what are the aspects of the child and what kind of life if any it will have.

If it is wrong, then they should be left to face the all mighty for their choices.

The big man gave us free will and that includes making the wrong choices.

Just wanted to add....


My POINT for at least one of you :headbang: is that the court GIVES THEM THEIR RIGHTS. Even if you are left in a vegetative state the acknowledgement that you still have RIGHTS must be made valid.

Problem: A vegitative state usually does not require 5(or more) resitations to stay alive. It's a questin of feed them and what not.

Problem: A vegitative state is the unknown. Can the brain be reactivated? That is different then several major organs not fuctionition or functioning correctly.

Different situation.

it's the parents' baby, so it's their choice. if they want to allow their baby to die peacefully then the State has no business trying to stop them; conversely, if they want to force the baby to continue suffering and die slowly and painfully then the State has no power to stop them, so long as the parents don't expect the State to pay for the care that prolongs the child's agony.

Here's a shocker ... I agree with you totally, Bottle! Wow! :D

As in what a spouse. You overlook one thing. A spouse can kind of know what their spouse wants to live and to die.

You can't speak for the unborn as they don't know.

Hey I got an idea.

Why don't you pay for the all the expenses since you feel the courts have to keep this child alive.

What you wont? Gee what a surprise.

It's quite easy to spout morality when you don't have to pay for it.

Sorry I have heard about the "morality" police in Saudi Arabia. I don't want that here.

The Doctors should help the parents make an informed decession as to what are the aspects of the child and what kind of life if any it will have.

If it is wrong, then they should be left to face the all mighty for their choices.

The big man gave us free will and that includes making the wrong choices.

"If you can't understand the toilet then go poop in the woods"

You are stuck with being unable to imagine what someone who cannot communicate might say. Even if they can't say a thing, more than likely if they could they would.

You decide to terminate a life because you believe you know which is best for them? In the courtroom, you would stand there with the same objective thinking - automatically the council must speak in favor, by offering the oppossing view which challenges your own. This is how people that cannot speak get to voice an opinion.

In the case of the baby, it might turn out that the council speaks in favor of the infant's demise.

If you become a vegetable and maybe you would want to die... what happens if your family won't allow it? What are you going to do? By your arguement, you wouldn't want anyone to speak on your behalf... so noone does...and there you get to live as a vegetable for the rest of your life.

"If you can't understand the toilet then go poop in the woods"

You are stuck with being unable to imagine what someone who cannot communicate might say. Even if they can't say a thing, more than likely if they could they would.

You decide to terminate a life because you believe you know which is best for them? In the courtroom, you would stand there with the same objective thinking - automatically the council must speak in favor, by offering the oppossing view which challenges your own. This is how people that cannot speak get to voice an opinion.

In the case of the baby, it might turn out that the council speaks in favor of the infant's demise.


Sorry but it is rather interesting you "moralists" think that everybody want's to live. It's ok for a suffering person to say let me die and yet the unborn seem to always want life. Even if it's this situation. Super human efforts to exist. This is not the same of as an accident where there is a probability you will survive.

The council might say death but he could very well say life as he could be a arch-christian.

So which is it now. You say the courts are not better suited and yet your examples say the courts have to decide.

Sorry it's the parents choice not the goverment and especially not yours!


If you become a vegetable and maybe you would want to die... what happens if your family won't allow it? What are you going to do? By your arguement, you wouldn't want anyone to speak on your behalf... so noone does...and there you get to live as a vegetable for the rest of your life.

It's called a do not resistate order. They are easy to make and many people have them.

Again, you failed on your arugment. The family made the choice!

It is not the goverments choice and it's especially not yours to make.

Ah.

Stuff happens. This is the parents' stubbornness. They are thinking of themselves, not the baby. They want a child, so they will put a baby through this torture to get one. If the baby will die, then let it die. Don't drag out it's misery.

http://www.abortionismurder.com/notconvinced.shtml
This site shows pictures of dead babies so I will warn you not to go to it if you are squeamish. Nevertheless, I would like to draw your attention to the dual-picture about half-way down the page. the babies are the same age. However one had been murdered, and the other is in a neonatal care center.
The choice is black and white, there is NO gray.
---------------------------------------------
Reality doesn't care if you believe it or not.

OK. Never heard that word used like that before.

Well no, it isn't logical. But so what? Wearing clothes isn't always logical. Smoking is never logical. Sexual mores are on the wholes enormously illogical. What of it?
logical fallacy land

right now its logic v emotion, the parents are being fools at this, its like the asinine chavo debate, that woman should've been let die long ago, and they need to let this go. it was born ~3 months premature and has been in plastic box for 11 months? it has had to have been revived 5 times already? just let the kid die already

There is a big difference between this and the Shiavo case - namely, that the people with the responsibility of making medical decisions for the baby have decided not to remove life support. Once the baby was born, it became a separate human life and the people who have the responsibility to make decisions for it (since it cannot for itself) are the parents. They have made their decision and the doctors, who can only suggest options but must carry out their jobs to the best of their abilities, should do as the parents have requested.

Leaving the baby on life support may cause more pain than it is worth in many eyes, but so do many treatments, such as chemotherapy for a tumor that has already metastisized. For someone in that case, the chances of survival are almost nil, but we do not conemn those who continue (or decide not to continue) chemotherapy.

As for those trying to compare this to abortion, it is not the same thing and you all know it.

http://www.abortionismurder.com/notconvinced.shtml
This site shows pictures of dead babies so I will warn you not to go to it if you are squeamish. Nevertheless, I would like to draw your attention to the dual-picture about half-way down the page. the babies are the same age. However one had been murdered, and the other is in a neonatal care center.
The choice is black and white, there is NO gray.
---------------------------------------------
Reality doesn't care if you believe it or not.

I don't know where you live, but the picture you wish to draw attention to is at 6 months. In this case in the US - an abortion could only be performed if the mother's life was in danger. In other words, that was most likely a wanted pregnancy, but the mother was likely to die if she continued her pregnancy. Sorry, you have made no point here.

There is a big difference between this and the Shiavo case - namely, that the people with the responsibility of making medical decisions for the baby have decided not to remove life support. Once the baby was born, it became a separate human life and the people who have the responsibility to make decisions for it (since it cannot for itself) are the parents. They have made their decision and the doctors, who can only suggest options but must carry out their jobs to the best of their abilities, should do as the parents have requested.

Leaving the baby on life support may cause more pain than it is worth in many eyes, but so do many treatments, such as chemotherapy for a tumor that has already metastisized. For someone in that case, the chances of survival are almost nil, but we do not conemn those who continue (or decide not to continue) chemotherapy.

As for those trying to compare this to abortion, it is not the same thing and you all know it.
chemotherapy is a choice made by a person trying to STAY alive, this is a decision to KEEP alive or let die, the baby is being kept alive by machine

I have a brother with a microcephalic brain, meaning he's completely retarded mentally and physically. My parents lives came to an end, doomed to watch my brother for the rest of their lives, prisoners because they have to constantly tend to him. I'm sure some doctor thought he was saving a life that day when he did all he could to help him live. But frankly, that doctor doesn't have a clue as to how much more suffering he has brought into the world.

To say this about my own brother is hard, but do try to think years down the road when you draw your conclusions about such a matter. I love my brother very much, but it is hard to see him the way he is.

If these parents want their baby kept alive, then let them do it. Although if the baby were to grow into a 22-year old invalid, they might begin to see the stupidity of their actions. It seems these doctors are the voice of reasoning in this situation, whereas in mine, we were not as fortunate.

chemotherapy is a choice made by a person trying to STAY alive, this is a decision to KEEP alive or let die, the baby is being kept alive by machine

No, chemotherapy is a choice made by a person in the hopes that it will keep them alive, although they are often certain to die one way or another. In many cases, it actually speeds up their death. Either way, however, it is medical treatment, as is being on a respirator or feeding tube. As long as the treatment is feasible and the parents want the child to have it (and someone is paying for it - of course, with such a visible case that would be easy), it should be done.

Hmm.

I think the doctors have the right to refuse care - they don't think keeping the child alive is right, so they won't be a part of it.
I think the parents have the right to seek care - if they can find a doctor willing to keep the kid alive for some sum of money, let them go ahead.
I don't think the kid has any relevant rights - it's right on the borderline between a human being and an insensate mass of non-sentient cells.

If you want a gruesome analogy, think of the kid as a severed arm.
You could keep a severed arm alive (as in, most of the cells won't lyse) with enough machines.
You can't force a doctor to operate those machines.
You can't prevent someone from paying someone else to operate those machines.
Regardless, the arm's "rights" are a non-factor.

First of all, this is different than abortion in that, in an abortion, the mother is considered the patient and, in this case, the child is the patient. It makes them not really comparable.

Secondly, parents are allowed to make decisions in the life of a child unless some official (doctor, police, teacher, etc.) says that the parent is making decisions that are harmful to the child to a point where it cannot be ignored. Courts become involved in such cases all the time, including ones concerning the medical care of a child.

Third, doctors in most countries adhere to some form of hippocratic oath. The revised version, proposed to the WHO, and most versions that exist clearly say the doctor should do no harm. In this case, doctors view it as providing artificial respiration to this child any longer is to force it to suffer with no possible positive outcome and that would qualify as harm. They are behaving exactly as a doctor should. The revised oath portion that applies here is as follows:
"I recognise the special value of human life but I also know that the prolongation of human life is not the only aim of healthcare. Where abortion is permitted, I agree that it should take place only within an ethical and legal framework. I will not provide treatments which are pointless or harmful or which an informed and competent patient refuses."

I agree this is a slippery slope and that the court should be careful in the decision it makes, however, it's clear to me that this child should be allowed to die. The treatments they are giving are both pointless and harmful as they cause this child to suffer. The normal gestation period of a human is 40 weeks and this child was born at 26. This child was born in the second trimester. It's eleven months old and has no knowledge of being alive or of other people being in it's presence. It's brain does function enough for it to feel pain and to suffer and I can't imagine how any caring parent would want that to continue particularly when there is no prospect of anything good coming from the treatment.

Hmm.

I think the doctors have the right to refuse care -


I am not possitive on that one. I think(at least in the US) they have to provide as long as someone with legal authority(ie spouse, parent) says do it!

Sorry but it is rather interesting you "moralists" think that everybody want's to live. It's ok for a suffering person to say let me die and yet the unborn seem to always want life. Even if it's this situation. Super human efforts to exist. This is not the same of as an accident where there is a probability you will survive.

The council might say death but he could very well say life as he could be a arch-christian.

So which is it now. You say the courts are not better suited and yet your examples say the courts have to decide.

Sorry it's the parents choice not the goverment and especially not yours!



It's called a do not resistate order. They are easy to make and many people have them.

Again, you failed on your arugment. The family made the choice!

It is not the goverments choice and it's especially not yours to make.
thanks for responding to him so i wouldn't have to do so. i have this rotten habit of becoming bored with rude people, and he bored me enough that i wandered away from the discussion altogether :).

EDIT: and, for the record, i would WANT to die if i were in the same situation as that baby, and i signed a DNR when i was 18 so that my family would never have to wonder about my wishes, but if i hadn't signed such a form i would far prefer to know my family was in charge of making decisions for me than to have the state running the show. my parents were the ones who decided to bring me into the world, not the state, and they decided my medical care for the first 18 years of my life. they were given the responsibility of my care, and in return they have the power to make the hard choices. unless the state is prepared to take ALL the responsibility of child medical care upon itself, i don't see how it has the slightest claim in cases like this one.

No, chemotherapy is a choice made by a person in the hopes that it will keep them alive, although they are often certain to die one way or another. In many cases, it actually speeds up their death. Either way, however, it is medical treatment, as is being on a respirator or feeding tube. As long as the treatment is feasible and the parents want the child to have it (and someone is paying for it - of course, with such a visible case that would be easy), it should be done.
bad comparison

chemo-therapy is NOT life support, it is a medical treatment, the child is a being on life support, only alive because of machines, without he machiens pumping nutrients and oxygen to it, it is dead.

after 11 months of life support and almost half a dozen resuscitation, LIFE support, which is not a treatment becuase it doesnt treat anything, is no longera feasible option

just a question:

is the state paying for the life support at this point? i sort of assumed that it was, but i suddenly realized i didn't specifically read that anywhere. does anybody know?

bad comparison

chemo-therapy is NOT life support, it is a medical treatment, the child is a being on life support, only alive because of machines, without he machiens pumping nutrients and oxygen to it, it is dead.

Life support is also considered to be medical treatment. Are you advocating that we take everyone currently on life support off of it because it is not medical treatment in your opinion?

after 11 months of life support and almost half a dozen resuscitation, LIFE support, which is not a treatment becuase it doesnt treat anything, is no longera feasible option

If it is still keeping the body alive, it is feasible. Is it right? Probably not. Is that our decision to make? No. The parents are the ones with the responsibility to make that decision, and they have made it.

its not necesarily "treatment" as its not treating anything, but where did i say we should take everyone off life support?

you have arguments with basic logical fallacies, like comparing apples and oranges, whether or not im wrong, this situation cannot be compared to cancer treatment

you have arguments with basic logical fallacies, like comparing apples and oranges, whether or not im wrong, this situation cannot be compared to cancer treatment
i disagree. i think that comparison is quite valid. if you would like to show why it is not then that's fine, but you haven't done so yet...you've just said it's not a valid comparision, but you haven't responded to Dem's points.

and i would say that life support is certainly treating many conditions; respiratory failure, cardiovascular failure, digestive failure, any number of conditions. how is life support not treating these conditions?

The doctors are probably acting in the parents' best interests here. If the child is suffering from such pain as they describe, and has no chance of surviving out of infancy, then the humane thing to do, for both the suffering child and the suffering parents, would be to let it pass on. But it really is the parents' choice. If they are willing to continue paying to keep their child alive, then the doctors should respect their decision and do everything within their power to achieve that end.
Most likely on the NHS, so I doubt they're paying.

i disagree. i think that comparison is quite valid. if you would like to show why it is not then that's fine, but you haven't done so yet...you've just said it's not a valid comparision, but you haven't responded to Dem's points.

and i would say that life support is certainly treating many conditions; respiratory failure, cardiovascular failure, digestive failure, any number of conditions. how is life support not treating these conditions?
whether or not i am correct is not at question, comparing unrevocable life support to chemotherapy is a fallacious comparison

it's the parents' baby, so it's their choice. if they want to allow their baby to die peacefully then the State has no business trying to stop them; conversely, if they want to force the baby to continue suffering and die slowly and painfully then the State has no power to stop them, so long as the parents don't expect the State to pay for the care that prolongs the child's agony.
*hates having to slap Bottle around on what the state should and shouldn't pay for*

To make this an issue of money is utterly reprehensible. Best interests of the child, wishes of the parents and medical authority, its complicated and heart-rending enough already, you do not bring money into something like this.

Are the parents qualified to make a decision about whether to let their kid die? What qualifications do you need? The medical situation is irrelevant - if they want the kid to live as long as possible, then that's fine, let the kid live as long as possible. What argument is there for letting the kid die?
Amounts of pain for the child that are impossible to qualify or quantify?

*hates having to slap Bottle around on what the state should and shouldn't pay for*

To make this an issue of money is utterly reprehensible. Best interests of the child, wishes of the parents and medical authority, its complicated and heart-rending enough already, you do not bring money into something like this.
actually, i do bring money into it. you can dislike that, and i don't really mind if you do, but i believe that the monetary issues are very significant in terms of the state's participation in medical care and the personal choices of a family.

the state should not be forced to pay for medical care that medical professionals determine to be cruel and counter productive. if the parents wish to continue such care then they can do so on their dime, but i believe it is wrong to insist that tax payers foot the bill so these parents can get their way.

by what right do these parents take public funds to maintain the bodily functions of what is essentially a dead child? why should the state pay for parents to make irresponsible choices? they are free to be irresponsible, and i have defended their right to make irresponsible choices about their child's medical care, but they are not free to ask other people to pay for it.

Could it be possible that keeping the child alive if it only feels pain is a form of child abuse? I don't know the actual legal definitions of child abuse, but it seems like there might be something along those lines against keeping the baby alive.
I would think that it would be both difficult and incredibly dangerous to make that case, especially with euthanasia currently illegal

whether or not i am correct is not at question, comparing unrevocable life support to chemotherapy is a fallacious comparison

I didn't say all chemotherapy, now did I? I specifically mentioned chemotherapy in a case in which the cancer has already metastasized and grown. Basically, at that point, your chances of improving and living are just as good as this baby's are right now. A person can choose to to continue chemo and hope for a miracle in the face of that, even though it will cause them great pain and is very unlikely to do any good - just like this child's parents can keep their baby on life support and hope for a miracle in the face of the fact that it is most likely in pain and is very unlikely to live.

actually, i do bring money into it. you can dislike that, and i don't really mind if you do, but i believe that the monetary issues are very significant in terms of the state's participation in medical care and the personal choices of a family.

the state should not be forced to pay for medical care that medical professionals determine to be cruel and counter productive. if the parents wish to continue such care then they can do so on their dime, but i believe it is wrong to insist that tax payers foot the bill so these parents can get their way.

by what right do these parents take public funds to maintain the bodily functions of what is essentially a dead child? why should the state pay for parents to make irresponsible choices? they are free to be irresponsible, and i have defended their right to make irresponsible choices about their child's medical care, but they are not free to ask other people to pay for it.
As you like it Bottle, but the way I prefer to think is to avoid, as far as possible, any contact between life and death decisions and money.

As you like it Bottle, but the way I prefer to think is to avoid, as far as possible, any contact between life and death decisions and money.
i wish i could afford to think that way :).

i wish i could afford to think that way :).
Heh.

Seriously though Bottle, it seems like what you're saying effectively is that its ok for the parents to keep their child in pain if they can afford it. Now I don't know whether I'm coming down on the side of the parents or the experts, but if you're saying anything remotely close to that, then I know that the side you're on is one where I'm not.

actually, i do bring money into it. you can dislike that, and i don't really mind if you do, but i believe that the monetary issues are very significant in terms of the state's participation in medical care and the personal choices of a family.

the state should not be forced to pay for medical care that medical professionals determine to be cruel and counter productive. if the parents wish to continue such care then they can do so on their dime, but i believe it is wrong to insist that tax payers foot the bill so these parents can get their way.

by what right do these parents take public funds to maintain the bodily functions of what is essentially a dead child? why should the state pay for parents to make irresponsible choices? they are free to be irresponsible, and i have defended their right to make irresponsible choices about their child's medical care, but they are not free to ask other people to pay for it.

i could not disagree with you more IN THIS CASE

no matter how rich the parents are, they should not be allowed to force their child to live in torment.

the state has interfered quite often in the medical decision of parents. as in those cases where the parents were convinced that faith healing would heal their child. the state stepped in in the best interest of the child.

the parents are grievously wrong in this case and the court needs to allow this child die. money is irrelevant when the child is suffering to no purpose but to make the parents feel better.

now, if the child were in a non painful vegetative state with no hope of recovery there MIGHT be some thought to not allowing them to keep their child alive with extraordinary means at the expense of the state.

No, chemotherapy is a choice made by a person in the hopes that it will keep them alive, although they are often certain to die one way or another. In many cases, it actually speeds up their death. Either way, however, it is medical treatment, as is being on a respirator or feeding tube. As long as the treatment is feasible and the parents want the child to have it (and someone is paying for it - of course, with such a visible case that would be easy), it should be done.
Well everybody dies Dempublicents, you have very few choices. A lucky few get to choose where and when. Having chemotherapy is prolonging the inevitable, but then so is going to the gym or eating less fried cheese. The question is, at what point does death now become the better option?

Heh.

Seriously though Bottle, it seems like what you're saying effectively is that its ok for the parents to keep their child in pain if they can afford it. Now I don't know whether I'm coming down on the side of the parents or the experts, but if you're saying anything remotely close to that, then I know that the side you're on is one where I'm not.
i believe that all parents should be able to make choices, like the one in this situation, when it comes to their child's medical care. i believe that parents are charged with the care of their children, and with that responsibility comes the reciprocal power to control what medical care is given or withheld. we allow parents to refuse to treat certain illnesses for religious reasons, so how can we justify forcing them to give up treatment if they have religious reasons for it to persist?

on the other hand, i also believe that the parents, and NOT the state, should pay for the decisions they make about their child's care. i am okay with parents making decisions that i may not agree with, but not if i am going to be expected to foot the bill for those choices. if the medical professionals have concluded that this baby is suffering and will never recover, then the maintenance of the baby's bodily functions is pretty much just cosmetic...it is something that serves no actual purpose but makes the parents feel good. if they can live with their decision to inflict horrible suffering on a helpless child in order to avoid feeling the pain of loss then that's their problem, but they most certainly CANNOT ask that public money be wasted on their vanity while there are actual medical problems that need to be addressed with those funds.

i could not disagree with you more IN THIS CASE

no matter how rich the parents are, they should not be allowed to force their child to live in torment.

the state has interfered quite often in the medical decision of parents. as in those cases where the parents were convinced that faith healing would heal their child. the state stepped in in the best interest of the child.

the parents are grievously wrong in this case and the court needs to allow this child die. money is irrelevant when the child is suffering to no purpose but to make the parents feel better.

now, if the child were in a non painful vegetative state with no hope of recovery there MIGHT be some thought to not allowing them to keep their child alive with extraordinary means at the expense of the state.

actually, American law has repeatedly upheld the rights of parents to use faith healing if they so desire. if you want to outlaw that then you won't hear any objections from me.

Well everybody dies Dempublicents, you have very few choices. A lucky few get to choose where and when. Having chemotherapy is prolonging the inevitable, but then so is going to the gym or eating less fried cheese. The question is, at what point does death now become the better option?

For those with incurable cancer, I think death is the better option. They are most certainly going to die, but at least they won't get so weak and sick that they can't do anything for a while. However, I would never advocate forcing someone to forgo chemo if they wanted to try it, despite the fact that their chances were next to nil. Likewise, these people have decided not to refuse care, despite the fact that the care is painful and has little chance of helping.

on the other hand, i also believe that the parents, and NOT the state, should pay for the decisions they make about their child's care. i am okay with parents making decisions that i may not agree with, but not if i am going to be expected to foot the bill for those choices. if the medical professionals have concluded that this baby is suffering and will never recover, then the maintenance of the baby's bodily functions is pretty much just cosmetic...it is something that serves no actual purpose but makes the parents feel good. if they can live with their decision to inflict horrible suffering on a helpless child in order to avoid feeling the pain of loss then that's their problem, but they most certainly CANNOT ask that public money be wasted on their vanity while there are actual medical problems that need to be addressed with those funds.

I agree with you here. It is unfortunate, but if the experts state that there is no chance, then the state should not be paying for it.

Of course, it is a moot point now. If the case is public enough that we have heard about it, there will be no end of people with a cause jumping up to fund the family.

I am not possitive on that one [doctors have the right to refuse care]. I think(at least in the US) they have to provide as long as someone with legal authority(ie spouse, parent) says do it!

I'm not positive on it either. But I'm pretty sure you can't just knock on a doctor's door and say, "Hey, gimme an appendectomy!" (well you can, but he doesn't have to) so clearly there's some case where doctors can refuse care. As businesspeople, doctors should (it seems to me) have the right to refuse care to anyone, so long as they do not do so in a discriminatory manner and such refusal doesn't constitute any sort of murder/manslaughter. I don't know if they have that right.

I'm not positive on it either. But I'm pretty sure you can't just knock on a doctor's door and say, "Hey, gimme an appendectomy!" (well you can, but he doesn't have to) so clearly there's some case where doctors can refuse care. As businesspeople, doctors should (it seems to me) have the right to refuse care to anyone, so long as they do not do so in a discriminatory manner and such refusal doesn't constitute any sort of murder/manslaughter. I don't know if they have that right.

Let's compare this to what it actually is. Suppose an older man is living on life support. Can the doctor decide to take it out since he's going to die anyways? Or should that be his wife's/kid's/other next of kin's decision?

i believe that all parents should be able to make choices, like the one in this situation, when it comes to their child's medical care. i believe that parents are charged with the care of their children, and with that responsibility comes the reciprocal power to control what medical care is given or withheld. we allow parents to refuse to treat certain illnesses for religious reasons, so how can we justify forcing them to give up treatment if they have religious reasons for it to persist?

on the other hand, i also believe that the parents, and NOT the state, should pay for the decisions they make about their child's care. i am okay with parents making decisions that i may not agree with, but not if i am going to be expected to foot the bill for those choices. if the medical professionals have concluded that this baby is suffering and will never recover, then the maintenance of the baby's bodily functions is pretty much just cosmetic...it is something that serves no actual purpose but makes the parents feel good. if they can live with their decision to inflict horrible suffering on a helpless child in order to avoid feeling the pain of loss then that's their problem, but they most certainly CANNOT ask that public money be wasted on their vanity while there are actual medical problems that need to be addressed with those funds.I think that the money being wasted on it is the least of the problems. As to overriding parent's decisions for their children, well, I think that legal precedant (certainly in Britain) would have grounds to disagree. For example, there have been cases of the children of Jehovah's witnesses taken into medical custody so they can have blood transfusions. But leaving even the legal precedant aside, when have you of all people claimed religion to be allowed as a trump card to overrule the law in matters of child safety?

For those with incurable cancer, I think death is the better option. They are most certainly going to die, but at least they won't get so weak and sick that they can't do anything for a while. However, I would never advocate forcing someone to forgo chemo if they wanted to try it, despite the fact that their chances were next to nil. Likewise, these people have decided not to refuse care, despite the fact that the care is painful and has little chance of helping.I agree, so long as the patient is allowed to make their own decisions (so long as they are capable of doing so).

I agree, so long as the patient is allowed to make their own decisions (so long as they are capable of doing so).

And if they are not capable? Do you really think the government should decide when there are others who already have that responsibility?

First off, after reading the article again, I noticed a few things:

Currently Charlette is breathing on her own, but needs a constant supply of oxygen. She is no longer on a ventilator, which is what this fight is about. The doctors do not wish a machine to do her breathing for her.

There is a bit of misunderstanding when it comes to pain, consciousness and life. If someone feels pain, (which the doctors claim she does), then she is in a state of consciousness, which means she's alive. There are four levels of counsciousness:

-Verbal: Able to correctly answer questions about time, location, date, etc.
-Motor: Able to respond to questions like 'raise your right arm', but unable to correctly identify location, date, etc.
-Pain: Responds to painful stimuli
-Unconscious: Unresponsive to all stimuli.

By the doctors own admission, she is alive, and fully capable of surviving, even if its a remote chance.

In my 'twisted' view of life, they should kill the child. There is little point in letting her live if she is that prematurely born there is little chance she will live or if she does live well.

Imagining for a moment that the baby has absolutely no hope - so? let the kid live for as long as she can. Why let the kid starve to death because she's damaged? Just look after her until she pegs out.

that's what the doctors want to do. they basically want a dnr on the kid.

and 26 weeks premature can't be right, that would mean 10 weeks of development, there wouldn't even be a brain, hell, there would hardly be lungs. i don't even thing there's a pound of flesh at that point of development. are you sure it wasn't 26 weeks along?

Like most normal people, my parents ENCOURAGED me to follow in their own beliefs. Others force religion down the child's throat. Even more are simply born into a world dominated by the family's belief system and can not comprehend questioning that structure. Pro_choice completely disregards any of this, because Pro-Choice demands that the child does not deserve personal rights.

children have personal rights.

embryos don't. embryos aren't children.

In my 'twisted' view of life, they should kill the child. There is little point in letting her live if she is that prematurely born there is little chance she will live or if she does live well.
it is NOT letting her live, it is KEEPING her alive and REVIVING her were she to DIE

First off, after reading the article again, I noticed a few things:

Currently Charlette is breathing on her own, but needs a constant supply of oxygen. She is no longer on a ventilator, which is what this fight is about. The doctors do not wish a machine to do her breathing for her.

There is a bit of misunderstanding when it comes to pain, consciousness and life. If someone feels pain, (which the doctors claim she does), then she is in a state of consciousness, which means she's alive. There are four levels of counsciousness:

-Verbal: Able to correctly answer questions about time, location, date, etc.
-Motor: Able to respond to questions like 'raise your right arm', but unable to correctly identify location, date, etc.
-Pain: Responds to painful stimuli
-Unconscious: Unresponsive to all stimuli.

By the doctors own admission, she is alive, and fully capable of surviving, even if its a remote chance.

fine, fine, if she is capable of surviving let her survive, HOWEVER, if she stops surviving and the need arises to revive her so she will continue to "survive", that action should NOT be taken

fine, fine, if she is capable of surviving let her survive, HOWEVER, if she stops surviving and the need arises to revive her so she will continue to "survive", that action should NOT be taken

And if it was your child, that would be your decision.

Having seen several "miraculous" recoveries in my life, I'm a firm advocate of "where there's life, there's hope." :)

My view is that it's only 'miraculous' because it hasn't been explained yet. Scientific explanations will most likely come in the near future.

My view is that it's only 'miraculous' because it hasn't been explained yet. Scientific explanations will most likely come in the near future.
most of the time people are totally misusing "miraculous," anyhow. the doctor says, "well, there's a very very small chance that the following might happen," and when it happens the parents say, "it's a miracle!!!" that's not miraculous, just improbable.

I don't know where you live, but the picture you wish to draw attention to is at 6 months. In this case in the US - an abortion could only be performed if the mother's life was in danger. In other words, that was most likely a wanted pregnancy, but the mother was likely to die if she continued her pregnancy. Sorry, you have made no point here.

I wouldn't waste my breathe (or the equivelent involved with typing).

This point is *repeatedly* brought up, but those against abortion adamantly refuse to let go, and just bring it up again a few posts later. Maybe because they're worried that if they let go of their ridiculous emotional appeals and self-inflicted ignorance (specifially, of the medical side of things; not necissarily in general), all they'll be left with is religious banter.

But then, it's not like pointless emotional appeals don't count as valid points, right?

Oh... wait...

:rolleyes:

I wouldn't waste my breathe (or the equivelent involved with typing).

This point is *repeatedly* brought up, but those against abortion adamantly refuse to let go, and just bring it up again a few posts later. Maybe because they're worried that if they let go of their ridiculous emotional appeals and self-inflicted ignorance (specifially, of the medical side of things; not necissarily in general), all they'll be left with is religious banter.

But then, it's not like pointless emotional appeals don't count as valid points, right?

Oh... wait...

:rolleyes:
what i don't get is why they think a gross picture is an argument. they show these gross pictures and are like, "SEE!! IT'S ICKY!! THEREFORE IT'S WRONG!!!"

what i want to know is, have these people never witnessed a childbirth?! it's freaking disgusting! i have been at a couple of births, and they are pretty durn yucky...the baby comes out all discolored and covered in blood and mucus, the afterbirth looks like somebody's guts being pumped out, and the woman's vagina often has to be stitched back together because it is torn so brutally by the process of birthing.

birthing may have a beautiful outcome, but it sure as hell ain't pretty to look at. if grossness is going to be our standard for morality then giving birth is, hands down, way more immoral than abortion.

And if it was your child, that would be your decision.
people not thinking straight should not be able to make life or death decisions

people not thinking straight should not be able to make life or death decisions

And you say that they are not thinking straight because they disagree with you? I'm sure a psychological exam would demonstrate that they are perfectly sane.

And you say that they are not thinking straight because they disagree with you? I'm sure a psychological exam would demonstrate that they are perfectly sane.
in this case, i doubt it


grieved parents do not want what is best for their child, they want what they THINK is best, and in this case they think forcing it to live after repeated basically deaths is what is best for it.

i think all teh doctors and nurses would disagree, and if they disagree with those people they can find a third party disconnected medical examiner to look over the case and the child and make his word hte final word

and if they dont want to submit the child can be released from their custody

The baby, named Charlotte, has been in hospital care since being born premature 11 months ago. Born 26 weeks premature and weighing just one pound, Charlotte required ventilation for her first three months of life.

Charlotte's parents feel their daughter has a real chance to survive and they want a judge to support their plea to force doctors to do everything possible to keep Charlotte alive.

The doctors say it's "against the child's interests" to let her live, because she has no chance of surviving infancy and will never be able to leave the hospital.

Doctors in the UK have asked a High Court judge to decide whether they have to keep a desperately ill baby alive if it stops breathing for a fourth time.

Ok... Where to begin. ;) (no, I'm replying directly to this because I'm too lazy to read through this damned thread).

First off, let me state that I am pro-choice; I believe in the right of women to choose. However, once the child is born, they have the right to life as any other human being does, even if they are born prematurely.

This baby should be given the same chance that everyone else is - life. The parents are right for wanting to fight for her right to live. Just because a doctor says one thing doesn't mean jack. Is the kid in pain? Is the kid near death's door? Do doctors have a responsibility to protect all life?

Maybe. Maybe. Yes.

I don't think the doctors are in any position to decide this child's future, just as they aren't in any position to deny a woman the right to abortion. This woman wants her baby to live. The doctors should do everything in their power.

Ok... Where to begin. ;) (no, I'm replying directly to this because I'm too lazy to read through this damned thread).

First off, let me state that I am pro-choice; I believe in the right of women to choose. However, once the child is born, they have the right to life as any other human being does, even if they are born prematurely.

This baby should be given the same chance that everyone else is - life. The parents are right for wanting to fight for her right to live. Just because a doctor says one thing doesn't mean jack. Is the kid in pain? Is the kid near death's door? Do doctors have a responsibility to protect all life?

Maybe. Maybe. Yes.

I don't think the doctors are in any position to decide this child's future, just as they aren't in any position to deny a woman the right to abortion. This woman wants her baby to live. The doctors should do everything in their power.
they arnt looking for a take off life support or an outright killing

they want a do not resuscitate order if the child stops breathing for the SEVENTH time

they arnt looking for a take off life support or an outright killing

they want a do not resuscitate order if the child stops breathing for the SEVENTH time
I believe it was a "forth" time.

I think you should stop for a minute and think. What if this was a relative of yours, any relative, old, young... Would you want to hear that the doctors wanted a "do not resuscitate" order on them?

I believe it was a "forth" time.

I think you should stop for a minute and think. What if this was a relative of yours, any relative, old, young... Would you want to hear that the doctors wanted a "do not resuscitate" order on them?

In a case like that, yes.

I think that the doctors should keep it alive unless it stops breathing again, at which point they can let it go. This is because I believe that the baby has the right to life, however if it ceases breathing it is not alive so there is now no argument.

I believe it was a "forth" time.

I think you should stop for a minute and think. What if this was a relative of yours, any relative, old, young... Would you want to hear that the doctors wanted a "do not resuscitate" order on them?
me wanting to hear it and it needing to happen are 2 different things entirely

I think you should stop for a minute and think. What if this was a relative of yours, any relative, old, young... Would you want to hear that the doctors wanted a "do not resuscitate" order on them?
if my relative was braindead, as this child is, then yes i would want them to be allowed to die. i would view it as a dishonor to that loved one to keep their body artificially alive when their mind has already left. their body was not the person, and to keep that body alive in order to cling to their memory would be dishonest of me.

I'm pro-choice, and I'm torn.

It sounds to me that killing the child would be the humane thing to do. But I think it is quite dangerous to give another person the power to decide whether one person's life is worth living. In situations like this, I think we should err on the side of life.

It really is a horrible situation.

And you say that they are not thinking straight because they disagree with you? I'm sure a psychological exam would demonstrate that they are perfectly sane.

I doubt it. Which psychological test should we use? Regardless, a cost-benefit analysis would show that these parents are irrational. Do you know how many babies with curable illnesses could be cured if the money was spent on viable children? I'd venture to say at least a thousand.