State Ordered Euthanasia

[Cute Wolf]

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

[Lemur]

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.

[Fragony]

No minor point cutting life support and euthanesia is a big difference. Feel sorry for these people anyhow

[Husar]

HOW DARE YOU COMPARE A BABY TO A HORSE!!!*


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.
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.

[Cute Wolf]

HOW DARE YOU COMPARE A BABY TO A HORSE!!!*


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.
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?

[rory_20_uk]

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.

[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.

[Fragony]

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

[Tellos Athenaios]

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.

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.

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.

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.)

[Lemur]

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.