This sort of thing makes my blood boil

branddaly · 15 Mar 2006 at 15:10

I'm afriad I have to agree with the coldness. There has to be a limit on how much you use medicine to intervine.

Thousands of years of evolution, of survival of the fittest is being wrecked by medicine, now even the weak survive. Some may say what about the unfortunate accidents, but we may be evolving a luck gene (cheers Larry Niven)

I fully agree there has to be a point where you pull the plug. The bit the really gets my goat is its normally the religious who whine on about the sanctity of life, yet there are the ones who preach about heaven or re-incarnation. :mad:

Dtab · 15 Mar 2006 at 15:13

The worst possible situation for any parent to be in - my sister has gone through it

Very easy to see both sides of this argument with the comfort of no personal involvement,but the 'waste of resources' point does not even come into it.
Taking that view to the limit,we are all going to die eventually anyway so anything spent avoiding it is a waste,which is clearly nonsense.

If he's not in pain (and the linky only mentions some discomfort from the ventilator) and is conscious,then i wouldn't expect any parent would give up hope

Vonhelmet · 15 Mar 2006 at 15:15

Dtab said:
If he's not in pain (and the linky only mentions some discomfort from the ventilator) and is conscious,then i wouldn't expect any parent would give up hope

What if there is, medically speaking, no hope?

I don't know if that is the situation here.

Gilly · 15 Mar 2006 at 15:16

I find the whole waste of resources argument completely abhorrent.

Vonhelmet · 15 Mar 2006 at 15:18

Borris said:
Keyboard ethical and moral philosophising.

Nothing wrong with that, is there?

You may as well complain about vocal chord ethical and moral philosophising.

Vonhelmet · 15 Mar 2006 at 15:19

Gilly said:
I find the whole waste of resources argument completely abhorrent.

Well, by that rationale, how much money is too much?

Moreover, how much money is too much if there is absolutely no hope of improvement, and no hope of any real quality of life?

Robdav · 15 Mar 2006 at 15:21

williamw11 said:
If he has no quality of life and no prospect of getting better then I think he should be allowed to die. The parents are probably reluctant to let go but they need to think of the childs suffering/lack of quality of life.

agreed...

Gilly · 15 Mar 2006 at 15:21

vonhelmet said:
Well, by that rationale, how much money is too much?

I would guess until it impacts other people.

NB. the impact of this case does not have a knock-on effect on people trying to register with a GP.

Vonhelmet · 15 Mar 2006 at 15:24

Gilly said:
I would guess until it impacts other people.

NB. the impact of this case does not have a knock-on effect on people trying to register with a GP.

True, not a direct effect, no. However, given how much debt the NHS as a whole is in, does it really help matters to pour money into something like this? The effect may be abstracted through several layers, but it is nonetheless the taxpayer that is footing the bill for this.

Also, you didn't give any answer to the question of how much it's worth when there's no real hope for the future of the child anyway.

Zip · 15 Mar 2006 at 15:27

I think a few years back down here some girl that sufferd extreem brain damage or something when she was born accuatly sued her parents for keeping her alive even when they knew there was no way she could live a normal life.(I think it was something like that)
Shes 20 something i think.

If i was born with anything like that i personally wouldnt like to live.
Some people think thats ethicly wrong but just think to your self, how would u like to live with a horrid disability like that where you couldnt do anything by yourself and couldnt make friends easily or do anything but sit there your entire life?
Once uve thought about that and imagined what your life would be like then say that they are doing the right thing by keeping it alive.

Thats my 2cents

branddaly · 15 Mar 2006 at 15:29

The waste of resources arguement may be abhorrent, but how can we force the doctors to spend their time on it? Yes we are paying their wages, but we are paying them to look after 1000's of people.

To say that someone must look after someone else is to remove the carers right to a choice. And that I disagree with.

Whenever I think of an ethical thing like this I revert to farmer mode. If I'm spending all my time and energy looking after someone who is ill, I'm not looking after the animals and land. If I'm not doing that, then starvation will ensue for myself and the sick person. Yes its good that a large society can spread the burden, but there still have to be limits.

dayloon · 15 Mar 2006 at 15:30

basmic said:
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.

Thats easy to say from a distance but if you were the childs parent you wouldn't have that attitude. The child is still a human life and entitled to the same care as everyone else. You are being exeptionally narrow minded.

Gilly · 15 Mar 2006 at 15:32

branddaly said:
The waste of resources may be abhorrent

Its not the 'waste' (your word not mine) of resources I find abhorrent. Its the people branding keeping someone alive through use of these resources as a waste that I find abhorrent.

branddaly · 15 Mar 2006 at 15:34

Gilly said:
Its not the 'waste' (your word not mine) of resources I find abhorrent. Its the people branding keeping someone alive through use of these resources as a waste that I find abhorrent.

Don't say it was my word. I took it from your post.

Gilly · 15 Mar 2006 at 15:35

branddaly said:
Don't say it was my word. I took it from your post.

You took it out of context though.

Nikias · 15 Mar 2006 at 15:38

Gilly said:
I find the whole waste of resources argument completely abhorrent.

I could not agree more.

Borris · 15 Mar 2006 at 15:38

vonhelmet said:
Nothing wrong with that, is there?

You may as well complain about vocal chord ethical and moral philosophising.

Mine was a bit of a throw away comment really.

My view is that, in the case in question, it should go to the highest court possible - The child is, after all, fully aware, and in no way mentally impaired.

It's a question of degrees (and, as you have said, layers), and definitely not something that I could definitively fall either side of.

I'm fully aware of the balance between quality of life and cost - I come fro a medical family, and both my father and mother have become embroiled in this sort of scenarion in the past, and I have seen how difficult it is to judge.

You suggested switching off the plug, so that your misses could get a GP appointment (I don't know you or Mrs VH, so forgive me if I'm overly insensitive or out of order) - I would say stop people pestering their GP, because they have "the flu" (I've also seen this first hand), and allow more funds to treat the terminally ill.

Von Smallhausen · 15 Mar 2006 at 15:38

basmic said:
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.

I can never, ever call a Human life a burdon on resources in that situation. That life is priceless and cannot be valued by money, doctors, judges are any mortal being.

I pray you are never put in the situation where your son is in that boat and such an ' unneccessary burdon. '

MNuTz · 15 Mar 2006 at 15:42

Every person is entitled to medical treatment no matter what their age or condition! Yes this child will have no quality of life and i agree that his family should let him go, however, i can not deny the child the 'resources' needed in order to keep him alive.

Better to 'waste' the resources on this little boy than on some alcoholic with liver problems or a smoker with lung cancer!

I just cant believe that some people are so bloody heartless!

basmic said:
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?

Who the hell do you think you are to say whether a persons life is worth living? Your arguement is flawed: If the boy is aware enough to know that he is living life then he should be given the chance to live, if he isnt aware enough then keeping him alive isnt going to bother him in the slightest.

God youve made me angry, i cant say exactly what i want to because i know ill get suspended!

Superdude · 15 Mar 2006 at 15:44

I can't see why in this world we can much more easily switch off the life of a dieing elderly person than a termailly ill baby.

This child will have no life, it is doomed to agony and eventual death.