Assisted Suicide

[TheMason]

CNN Story

I just saw this about a 17 month toddler who is suffering from a rare nuerological disorder known as Leigh's Disease. One of the things that struck me in the story is this blurb from the mother:

Emilio's mother, Catarina Gonzales, on the other hand, is fighting to keep her son on the ventilator, allowing him to die "naturally, the way God intended."

Okay, is this not the excuse that advocates of pulling life support use to support their position rather than to keep a person ON life support? I mean whether or not you believe in God, the fact remains that ventilators and other life support equipment does not exist in nature...

Man the world is getting weird...

[Me-Patch]

Art Caplan, an ethicist at the University of Pennsylvania, supports the Texas law giving the hospital the right to make life or death decisions even if the family disagrees. "There are occasions when family members just don't get it right," he said. "No parent should have the right to cause suffering to a kid in a futile situation."

Strong words. I'm not a big fan of that law, although it's none of my buisness being a Pennsylvanian. In this instance it seems like the right thing to do would be to disregard the parents and take the baby off of life support, but that law seems awfuly vague.

[HighlyIllogical]

The parents have the right to control their child's life. But I wouldn't keep the poor kid on the ventilator...that's just cruel.

I can't impose my values on the parents...

[MortifiedPenguins]

At 4/25/07 04:08 PM, Me-Patch wrote:

Strong words. I'm not a big fan of that law, although it's none of my buisness being a Pennsylvanian. In this instance it seems like the right thing to do would be to disregard the parents and take the baby off of life support, but that law seems awfuly vague.

There are times when those words ring true and there are times when those words don't.

There are points between respecting the life of the individual and protecting it, and going outside the means and actions of any decent government.

[SyntheticTacos]

To quote South Park:

"You bureaucrats have no right to play God and take that tube out!"

"No, no, you see, they were playing God when they put the feeding tube IN!"

[InsertFunnyUserName]

In my opinon, they should remove the life support and let the baby die peacefully, unless it is making progress towards recovery. If the rest of it's life is going to consist of sitting in a hospital bed not being able to move, then I think that it would be better for child to just pass away.

There is going to be no good in keeping someone alive if all they are going to do is sleep and breath. If the parents want to "let the baby die naturally; the way God intended", than they should remove the feading tube. If their God does not want the baby to die, than he should save it, right?

[yoshiclass]

the world would be easier if we lived in peace..............but we don't so oh well

[DeathDementor]

i thinkt hat she means that a natuaral death so like he died when he was meant to or what she believe what god wanted so yeh that natuaral i dont think is meant to be literal

[JohnStephens]

Suicide bad putting to sleep ok.

[Llama0wn3d]

I think that hospitals SHOULD be able to make decisions based upon what is medically best for the patient concerned. families should be made aware of what is going on and if necessary given counseling to help them understand what was/had to be done. For example, a person who is afflicted with Motor Neurone Disease (a condition where the patient gradually loses all movement and communication skills, then eventually suffocates when unable to move their diaphragm and so breathe) should be helped to die
(when they reach a specified point) if they have requested it at an earlier point when they could still communicate. If the chance of a patient recovering are slim to non-existent then IMO unreasonable efforts to resuscitate them should not be made. If I were in such a situation then I would trust medically trained professionals to make the decision for me. Families, whilst meaning well, are often too close to the patient to be able to make an unbiased decision. I know that I may come across as cold, but the pain of a loved one passing on relatively quickly is likely to be much less than that of seeing a loved one linger on in a pitiful state and then only pass away when you have to make the decision to remove life-support.

[scorchin-hot]

This could all have been avoided if they baby was more specific in his will.

[WRB852]

At 4/25/07 04:53 PM, SyntheticTacos wrote: To quote South Park:

"You bureaucrats have no right to play God and take that tube out!"

"No, no, you see, they were playing God when they put the feeding tube IN!"

You just defined my position on that issue, thank you.

[Bmage2290]

At 4/25/07 03:51 PM, TheMason wrote: CNN Story

I just saw this about a 17 month toddler who is suffering from a rare nuerologicdisorder known as Leigh's Disease. One of the things that struck me in the story is this blurb from the mother:
al
Emilio's mother, Catarina Gonzales, on the other hand, is fighting to keep her son on the ventilator, allowing him to die "naturally, the way God intended."

.

Woah.. now that is messed up. Allowing him to die the "natural" way while on life support? Now THAT is funny, seriously... some people need to get back with reality. If it was truely "natural" he would not be on life support.

According to Wikipedia.org "The disease is most noted for its degradation in a person’s ability to control their movements. Other symptoms include loss of appetite, vomiting, irritability, continuous crying (in infants), and seizures."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leigh%27s_diseas e

The only possible way to treat it is with Thiamine (Vitamin B1) and even if he lives a few years, death is almost imminent. I kind of feel sorry for that kid, having to keep suffering while on life support due to this. In a since, this is more selfishness onthe mother, making the kid go through this torture so he can die from the effects of the disease later on in life. Kinda cruel and sadistic in a way.

Assisted Suicide? I think not, he would only die the natural way.

[troubles1]

At 4/25/07 03:51 PM, TheMason wrote: CNN Story


Man the world is getting weird...

as a Parent I can not imagine making that decision, personally it would be almost unbearable to live with, so to be completely honest I do not feel it is the responsibility of the parent, if the Doctor knows that the child will not recover, I think the most humane thing is for the Doctor to make that decision, so the parent can grieve without feeling like they murdered there child or did not do everything to keep it alive.

DO you nave kids Mason? I have lived with death saw people die, lost loved ones but the thought of my children dying is completely different, I am serious when I say it should not be a decision the parents make, let them grieve without a guilty conscience, Can you understand what it is I am trying to convey.

[Shukumei-the-Fox]

At 4/25/07 06:20 PM, InsertFunnyUserName wrote: In my opinon, they should remove the life support and let the baby die peacefully, unless it is making progress towards recovery. If the rest of it's life is going to consist of sitting in a hospital bed not being able to move, then I think that it would be better for child to just pass away.

I'm not going to impose my will on anyone, but personally, I agree with you. Remember: As this child is so young, its immune system could not have developed fully,( hence why children get sick easier) but even if it had, considering that this is a neurological disorder, even an adult's body would find it almost impossible to fight. The child is most certainly in pain, and will doubtfully live longer than a few more months.
This being the case, and the parents knowing the child cannot be cured, it certainly seems harsh and cruel to keep the baby on life support. I personally think that the child should be painlessly " put to sleep". ( For lack of better words.)

[ReiperX]

I think they need to pull the plug. The child is going to die no matter what, and right now he is only taking up hospital space and equipment, as well as racking up cost to the mother. If the mother doesn't pay (which I doubt she'll be able to ) then everyone else pays.

But even besides the money and equipment, the child is suffering, and has no chance of survival. There is no reason to keep him on life support other than the parents being selfish.