This sort of thing makes my blood boil

[BillytheImpaler]

Basically if nothing can come of the child's life, then end it's life. It's a waste of everybody's time, money and resources which could be better used elsewhere.

So on that line of reasoning at the instant someone becomes useless we should chuck them away? Should we go through hospitals daily unplugging old people? They had lived their time, now they need to stop using out juicy delicious air.

Does a person need to be useful or productive to deserve to deserve a life? If the parents want to keep their child alive, it is their perrogative to do so. Might it be possible that they like their child despite his current condition?

 

[Iraklis F.C.]

if they can they should let the child pass away , otherwise i think that it wont be 1 life wasted but 3 and maybe more (the whole family) . I am talking from experience similar to freefaller's/.

 

[Yas786]

I have a cousin that was born completely brain damaged. She has no apparent perception of who she is, who anyone is, she can't walk, talk, feed herself, go to the loo or anything. She just sits like a sack of potatoes on the floor grinning, and crawling around on the floor drooling and doing nothing. She is now 20 and she has the body of a 11 year old. She hasn't matured at all. It's dreadful and sad, and I feel awful everytime I see her.

My uncle said to me, if ever you find your child is going to be like this, *mimic a neck wringing action*, "say yes to the doctor".... They've had to live with this burden and it's more painful than it would have been to have let her pass away.

I have to say it's an awful position to be in, but I agree that there is little point in salvaging a life that will not be fulfilled or saved. It's tough decision, but I agree that the plug should be pulled in this case.

Funnily enough i have a cousin whos 25 and is completely paralysed, so much so that she cant talk, eat by herself or do anything...shes basically in a wheelchair. The ironic thing about her is that up till the age of 5 she was perfectly healthy but sadly one day fell down a flight of stairs, causing her to be in the condition she is in now .

Basically she got very ill last yr and they were about to pull the plug but somehow she managed to pull through and is now out of hospital. So her parents had already made the decision to pull the plug or were getting used to that fact. So yes its a tough decision to be making but i feel if its in the interests of the child to no longer suffer then so be it.

 

[M0T]

I agree that it must be a hard decision to make, but surely the parents must realise the futility of it all? Naturally that child would be dead, the only reason that that child is still alive is medical intervention and in this case theres no chance that anything could be done to repair the damage.

How would these parents feel if their baby was born with difficulties and had the chance of a full recovery, however it died because the equipment wasn't available due to it effectively being wasted on a lost cause?

I think the main reason the parents came up with in this case for allowing it to continue living is that the doctors cannot tell if it has the consciousness and mental faculty of a normal baby or not (according to the news report I saw anyway).

 

[basmic]

So on that line of reasoning at the instant someone becomes useless we should chuck them away? Should we go through hospitals daily unplugging old people? They had lived their time, now they need to stop using out juicy delicious air.

Does a person need to be useful or productive to deserve to deserve a life?

Those old people more than likely had their live's worth.

Having worked in a old-folks home, I can say that some are purely there to sit and die. If we were to unplug them, all we'd be doing is putting them out of their agony.

When they do die, their families almost always say "well at least they're out their misery now" - they could have put them out of their misery earlier, if it was allowed.

My point being - if somebody's life isn't worth living, why should they have to live it?

 

[gord]

The problem comes when you are unable to emotionally detach and make the best decision. Its really quite easy to see it from both sides. The medics are able to view it from a clinical POV meaning they can see what in their view is best for the child.

I can imagine nothing more emotionally involving than discussing allowing your child to die.

Definitely.. i wouldnt like to be their shoes. I just feel sorry for the family and the child, no decision will be an easy one.

I'm so sorry for making a spelling mistake, your majesty

Thats quite alright, but dont stop scrubbing! Cant get good peasants nowadays!

 

[ALLI]

Link to what I'm referring to.Sorry but the child is an unnecessary burdon on resources. In my eyes, it's like feeding a dying a horse.

If I post any more, I'll likely end up swearing through pure anger.

So you can honestly say that if your child was being fed and kept alive artificially it would be an easy decision for you to say "turn it off please".

I agree with you wholeheartedly - I cannot see any logical reason to keep someone alive for longer than is necessary but if my kids get terminally ill I'd be so heartbroken. The decision to switch off would be a very hard one to make.

 

[Rich_L]

Probably not, but I'm not a great a believer in waste.

Which reminds me, I'm going to try and part myself with some old stuff in the loft later.

I think you're a waste.

Don't make a mess now will you?

^^

I obviously don't mean the above But I think you are being very callous in your appreciation of the issues in this case. It's a decision which no-one should have to make and I feel for the judge in the middle of it who is going to viewed as making the wrong decision either way.

What makes it more difficult is that the Judge had already given an order to let the child die, but against all the odds the baby started to recover/stabilise...hence why this issue has come around again.

 

[zain]

If you have never been in the situation you have no right to say what decision is best. Do you honestly think its easy for the parents? Its a damn hard choice that only they should make, not you, not a doctor or any other high experienced professional.

How would you like it if your child was like this and I came along and said "hey you're wasting resources, pull the plug!". That one parent someone mentioned earlier did regret it, but it was their choice.

I couldnt have an opinion on it as I really wouldnt know what to do. On one side; do you want the child to be a useless thing that needs 24/7 care and always in pain, in and out of hospital, etc. The other side is; its life, who are we to play god with someones life whether it be our family or not.

This reminds me of something - that guy Chris Eubank fought; he was said to be paralized for life or something? but he made a full recovery, miracles can happen and I dont always believe what doctors say.


Sad.

 

[BrenOS]

Basmic did you fully read the article before posting?

But the judge said he was not unconscious and was capable of bonding with his family.

He said Baby MB could probably see, hear and feel - taking pleasure from the eight or nine hours his family spend with him each day.

Justice Holman said: "It must be assumed that he processes all of those sights and sounds like any child of his age and gains pleasure from them."

That's enough for me.

 

[Cueball]

The parents are faced with a seemingly impossible decision. You can't blame them for wanting to cling onto every possible glimmer of hope, even if it is a false-hope and there is truely no hope.

It's all part of the grieving process - accepting the inevitable. Most people can't emotionally detatch themseles from their own children, hence the dificulty.

It's very easy for us to sit here and say what we would have done, however most of us haven't been in that situation.

I personally believe that if the baby's existence is truely futile, then the baby should be left to pass away humanely. Keeping him/her alive like some living piece of meat isn't a nice thing to do. Alas, the parents aren't thinking that far ahead at the moment, and who can blame them?

 

[Aliboy]

the child is an unnecessary burdon on resources. In my eyes, it's like feeding a dying a horse.
If I post any more, I'll likely end up swearing through pure anger.

I think the words 'an unnecessary burdon on resources' is very harsh and makes you seem very uncaring and cold (which I'm sure you're not basmic), but what resourses are the medical team using up that are affecting you at this moment in time These parents may only have hope to cling on to and the decision that they may or may not have to make will stay with them for the rest of their lives As for the 'feeding a dying horse' let's put that in another perspective basmic and see what you think. Imagain you have witnessed a dreadful car accident were one or more people are very seriously injured. You look at them and you know deep down that their chances of survival are almost zero. Do you walk away thinking ' what's the point of me helping, I'm only wasting my time?' or do you go over and comfort them? The instinct to survive in all of us would surely take over and we would try everything we could to help regardless of how miniscule our contribution might be, even if it did seem like we were fighting a losing battle

 

[Dj_Jestar]

Link to what I'm referring to.Sorry but the child is an unnecessary burdon on resources. In my eyes, it's like feeding a dying a horse.

If I post any more, I'll likely end up swearing through pure anger.

So you are only worried about the burden on resources, and not the actual life of the child?

 

[Cueball]

So you are only worried about the burden on resources, and not the actual life of the child?

This is going to sound harsh, but to put an objective view on the thread:

What life? A life is not simply existing. What about the quality of life?

 

[Gilly]

This is going to sound harsh, but to put an objective view on the thread:

What life? A life is not simply existing. What about the quality of life?

Thats what Jestar was getting at though. The OP was seemingly uncaring regarding the quality of life and only bothered about the resources.

 

[Vonhelmet]

It costs a huge amount to keep one struggling, paralysed toddler alive.
Meanwhile, myself and countless others can't get a doctors appointment.

It's like utilitarianism got turned upside down.

 

[Gilly]

It costs a huge amount to keep one struggling, paralysed toddler alive.

Yep. I imagine it does.

Meanwhile, myself and countless others can't get a doctors appointment.

You can't?

Change doctors or go private

 

[basmic]

Change doctors or go private

Or just unplug this child, and unleash some resources.

I understand I come across as bitter git. But at the end of the day, the child is very much a vegetable.

 

[Vonhelmet]

You can't?

Change doctors or go private

We only got a place at this surgery after my wife traipsed round half a dozen surgeries, and wound up bursting into tears in front of the receptionist when she said we couldn't sign up there.

As for private... what am I paying my taxes for again?

National health service my arse.

Tell them and their paralysed baby to go private.

 

[Borris]

And we come on to the big debate behind the welfare state and allocation of resources.

Who do you save, and who do you not save?

I'm sure we can all right big lists on either side, but it's the grey areas and the marginal decisions that define things.

Consider the doctors - they practice medicine, yet also have to make these types of decision.

Consider NHS bureaucracy / admin - they may have training in this type of decision, but no experience in medicine, or face to face experience.

Keyboard ethical and moral philosophising.