Re: State Ordered Euthanasia
The first thing that strikes me is that it wasn't long ago that most families had a small child or baby die, or even several, and often the mother. I can't quite comprehend how they dealt with that.
Re: State Ordered Euthanasia
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Don Corleone
http://www.vancouversun.com/health/C...482/story.html
I'll hold off on my editorial stance until later. I'd prefer to cede the floor to others first.
But I am curious, and ask participants of each side to explain:
Quote:
Pro-government ordered euthanasia: What common good is the state seeking in ordering the death of the child? I find the statements on risk of long-term infection in particularly poor taste and shows depraved indifference to the feelings of the parents, given that the removal of the breathing tube will result in almost death within the span of an hour.
.
I can only assume the state wants to make sure the death is humane and don't feel as if the parents can adequatley accomadate such a request, granted the article does not go on more than informing but if the baby will be dead within the hour with the removal of the tube is that is even enough time to get the child home before he succumbs?
I find the fact the government can so wontonly order something like this unsettleing and alarming but at the same time I can't necesarily see where the government gains with a decison such as this. They must know the kind of pub this will entail and I can't necesarily see it starting some sort of precedent.
Clearly this is gut wrenching and it is not an easy decison to make but one must acknoweldge the limited gains the government stands to make added with the childs inability to survive upwards of an hour on his own as a sign they are making the best possible decison
The parents on the other hand are just that and are no doubt blinded by that fact (as they should be)
As an aside, when I was born I was given my last rites twice and was pretty much condsidered dead, my mother elected to keep me in the hospital to die there. My Grandmother that night tried to break into the hospital and take me home where I would die surronded by my family
The only reason I say this is because my Grandmother spent the first 55 years of here life in Rural Italy and that played a huge role in her decison to break into a hospital. I can't help but think there may be a cultural disconnect here
This is tough Don, I hate the fact I'm leaning toward the government on this because its nasty buisness. its reasons like this why I have emergencey whiskey
]
Re: State Ordered Euthanasia
Strike,
I think you misunderstood my question. It presupposes a belief in limited government, that the state should only act in ways in which they are demonstrably pursuing a clear common good. But fascinating story all the same...
Sasaki,
A hell beyond imagination I pray multiple times every day I'm never subjected to. I regard outliving one's offspring to be a fate far, far worse than death.
Re: State Ordered Euthanasia
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Don Corleone
Strike,
I think you misunderstood my question. It presupposes a belief in limited government, that the state should only act in ways in which they are demonstrably pursuing a clear common good. But fascinating story all the same...
.
heh, I think we're far past that point in all facets of government. But The state is acting in the common good in the sense that it is saying people will be allowed to die humanley, They are acting in the best interests of the child, the parents are not
Does that make sense
Heh, sorry about the story, preme births fascinate me because of this and I tend to ramble...like right now
Re: State Ordered Euthanasia
Doctors > stupid relatives
Re: State Ordered Euthanasia
Euthanesia should never be more than an option imho
Re: State Ordered Euthanasia
well, what's better way to die? to die in the sleep without much fuss and surrounded by tearful family, or a quick one hour choked by lack of breathing?
even a quick death by decapitation is more humane than asking a child to die choked
Re: State Ordered Euthanasia
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Sonic
well, what's better way to die? to die in the sleep without much fuss and surrounded by tearful family, or a quick one hour choked by lack of breathing?
even a quick death by decapitation is more humane than asking a child to die choked
Sure but can't impose it, slippery slope there. I fully support euthanesia but it's up to the parents
Re: State Ordered Euthanasia
Is this not really the removing of a breathing tube, it isn't Euthenasia in the sense the child is being killed - this is a question of removing artificial life support.
Re: State Ordered Euthanasia
that's the slippery slope on legalizing abortion, now euthanasia, and now they forced it.
I think criminals are more deserving to die rather than child with diseases, but today's liberals have no sanity
Re: State Ordered Euthanasia
If the child was in a vegetative state, wouldn't if feel no pain? So I don't understand why it matters how the child died in the first place and the decision should have been left to the parents.
Re: State Ordered Euthanasia
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Is this not really the removing of a breathing tube, it isn't Euthenasia in the sense the child is being killed - this is a question of removing artificial life support.
It's indeed no euthanesia if so. Killed is a bit of a nasty way of putting it by the way, put to rest would be better. Euthanesia is only possible if there is no hope of recovery, and death is going to be a very painful affair, it isn't taken lightly
Re: State Ordered Euthanasia
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Chuchip
If the child was in a vegetative state, wouldn't if feel no pain? So I don't understand why it matters how the child died in the first place and the decision should have been left to the parents.
well, the question is the state FORCED it for saving some money
Re: State Ordered Euthanasia
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Chuchip
If the child was in a vegetative state, wouldn't if feel no pain? So I don't understand why it matters how the child died in the first place and the decision should have been left to the parents.
Eh no. The parents wanted the doctors to perform a risky bit of surgery on the kid which effectively meant circumventing the whole windpipe (the lungs would be exposed directly).
Re: State Ordered Euthanasia
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Cute Wolf
well, the question is the state FORCED it for saving some money
I'm sorry, where in the reporting was it established (or even suggested) that the doctors' primary motivation was money? When you're talking about a baby in a permanent vegetative state, parents asking for risky operations, and a life that is only sustained by mechanical aid, the issues are a little bit more difficult than "Evil lubruls want to kill babiez." Please. Ease up on your rhetorical gas pedal a little and think about this issue; Don deserves no less.
My take: The doctors were within their rights to deny the tracheotomy. Here are the really relevant passages from the article for me:
Joseph suffers from a severe and deteriorating neurological condition that has left him in a persistent vegetative state, according to specialists in London, Ont., who've examined him. He's been at the Victoria Hospital, part of London Health Sciences Centre, since October.
Nine years ago, Maraachli and Nader lost a daughter who suffered from health complications nearly identical to Joseph's.
Although the couple has accepted their baby boy's inevitable death, they insisted that it occur peacefully at home and not by removing his breathing tube, which will cause him to choke since he can't swallow or breathe on his own. The parents asked for a tracheotomy, which would open up a direct airway through an incision in Joseph's trachea and make it possible to bring the baby home.
But doctors refused to perform the procedure, citing serious risks of infection, pneumonia and other possible complications.
So this couple had a baby that died of nearly exactly the same condition nine years ago. Yet they went ahead with another pregnancy, and apparently did not do the appropriate tests, or go the in vitro route to weed out whatever genetic condition they have.
I think there is more to this than whether or not the state is valid in insisting that the baby die in a hospital instead of at home. There's a very serious question about this couple's judgment. If you have a genetic condition that has already caused one of your young to die before their first birthday, you have a very real and serious obligation to exercise caution when you next conceive, assuming you do conceive again.
None of this can be codified in law, of course. You can't legislate away stupidity. But I think the focus on the role of the doctors and the courts is one-sided; I think it's quite possible that the parents are irresponsible idiots.
-edit-
Last thought: I question the use of the word "euthanasia" when applied to people who are only able to live from one moment to the next with the aid of machines. It's a minor point, but the withdrawal of mechanical support strikes me as a slightly different phenomenon from what people usually mean when they talk about mercy killing. To move it away from babies, shooting a horse with a broken leg is euthanasia. Removing a horse from an iron lung it needs to breathe? Not exactly euthanasia.
Re: State Ordered Euthanasia
No minor point cutting life support and euthanesia is a big difference. Feel sorry for these people anyhow
Re: State Ordered Euthanasia
HOW DARE YOU COMPARE A BABY TO A HORSE!!!*:furious3:
Well, did they know that the first baby died because of a genetic condition or could it just as well have been random?
If they knew they had a genetic condition that made it likely to happen again, then it seems pretty silly to have gotten another baby just like that. :shrug:
Now there's a huge row over what to so with the baby, and it's going to die anyway, not great overall.
But why do the doctor think it's a bad idea to cut it open because it could get an infection? I mean what they want to do is going to kill it just as well?
*Intentional misinterpretation in the spririt of Backroom traditions.
Re: State Ordered Euthanasia
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Husar
HOW DARE YOU COMPARE A BABY TO A HORSE!!!*:furious3:
Well, did they know that the first baby died because of a genetic condition or could it just as well have been random?
If they knew they had a genetic condition that made it likely to happen again, then it seems pretty silly to have gotten another baby just like that. :shrug:
Now there's a huge row over what to so with the baby, and it's going to die anyway, not great overall.
But why do the doctor think it's a bad idea to cut it open because it could get an infection? I mean what they want to do is going to kill it just as well?
*Intentional misinterpretation in the spririt of Backroom traditions.
If he will die sooner than later, why considering infections? does that indirectly means the baby in question have hope of survival and the doctor want to throw his anyway?
Re: State Ordered Euthanasia
Doctors can withdraw treatment that they view as not in the patient's best interests. They can also not perform surgery that they view as not in the patient's best interests.
Yes, it's sad, but it happens. This merely illustrates how far medicine has come, allowing us to support those which would have otherwise just died.
Slippery slope? The only slippery slope is the increasing presumption that treatment should be given based on what the relatives want.
~:smoking:
Re: State Ordered Euthanasia
I think this story is too sad to even consider going into the rights of parents/the government etc. Both are obviously just wanting to do what's best for the kid.
Re: State Ordered Euthanasia
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Lemur
I'm sorry, where in the reporting was it established (or even suggested) that the doctors' primary motivation was money? When you're talking about a baby in a permanent vegetative state, parents asking for risky operations, and a life that is only sustained by mechanical aid, the issues are a little bit more difficult than "Evil lubruls want to kill babiez." Please. Ease up on your rhetorical gas pedal a little and think about this issue; Don deserves no less.
My take: The doctors were within their rights to deny the tracheotomy. Here are the really relevant passages from the article for me:
Agreed.
Quote:
So this couple had a baby that died of nearly exactly the same condition nine years ago. Yet they went ahead with another pregnancy, and apparently did not do the appropriate tests, or go the in vitro route to weed out whatever genetic condition they have.
Easy on the “stupid” gas pedal here. First borns tend to have all sorts of medical defects or complications, so it's not immediately apparent why the couple should think in terms of genetic diseases to explain the horrible fate of their daughter. It's quite understandable that they didn't make that connection, and for all we know the doctors which treated their daughter didn't either. In fact, we don't even have much to go on with the “it's the genes, stupid” leap to conclusions.
Quote:
There's a very serious question about this couple's judgment.
Well, that's the whole cutting extra holes in your baby thing so it can die a wretched death at home instead of pulling the tube so it can die a wretched death in the hospital. (Clearly the couple don't see it this way, so it's not an argument in their reasoning.) To me that simply means inflicting a lot more misery on your baby out of a belief that “children should be with their parents” or “children should be at home” which does seem to be the type of argument the parents are grasping for support. I can sort of see where this would come from, even why they might let such an argument dominate their reasoning. Still, I do think this is all very mistaken and not at all doing the baby a favour.
Quote:
If you have a genetic condition that has already caused one of your young to die before their first birthday, you have a very real and serious obligation to exercise caution when you next conceive, assuming you do conceive again.
But presumably this condition is a big if. One baby is not necessarily a genetic condition, it could be extremely though luck, la vie, or what you want to call it. Simple alternative: your first born child dies because of miscarriage in 4th month. Does that mean the mother should not have another baby because it is quite possible her immune system forced the baby out? (Meaning the next baby might well be rejected, too, since such miscarriages only get more likely as the immune system gets better at detecting and evicting babies from the womb.)
Re: State Ordered Euthanasia
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Tellos Athenaios
But presumably [a genetic] condition is a big if. One baby is not necessarily a genetic condition, it could be extremely though luck, la vie, or what you want to call it.
Quite correct, I concede the point. It's easy when a couple has had two kids with near-identical conditions to say, "Folks, seriously, you've got what may be a genetic condition," much harder to make that assertion from one child.
Re: State Ordered Euthanasia
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Rhyfelwyr
I think this story is too sad to even consider going into the rights of parents/the government etc. Both are obviously just wanting to do what's best for the kid.
^-- agree with this
Re: State Ordered Euthanasia
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Tellos Athenaios
Eh no. The parents wanted the doctors to perform a risky bit of surgery on the kid which effectively meant circumventing the whole windpipe (the lungs would be exposed directly).
Oh yea I forgot about that part of the article. I'm wondering though, would the baby have felt pain since it was in a vegetative state?
