It appears that doctors and hospitals are determining when someone should die as opposed to loved ones. This couple wanted to keep their infant child alive. The hospital determined that it would be a wasted life, and pulled the plug.
Normally, I am for euthanasia, and the "right-to-die." Unfortunately, it appears that the British government is making the decisions on the right to live or die. This is a violation of so many freedoms. The parents and loved ones of this child wanted to keep the baby alive, and those wishes should have been respected. This is a gross violation of parental rights.
Well I think as long as the parents were able to pay for their baby to stay in the hospital longer, the doctors should've just backed off. The doctors said that with his health problem he wouldn't have a meaningful life or however they said that, and the parents may have known that, but they just wanted their baby to live a little longer and experience a little more before he died. He should have been able to get as much out of life as he could, but he couldn't really do that if he's not given a chance. It should have been up to the parents.
That's... Interesting. But no one takes the life of infants lightly, so I'm guessing it was pretty seriously painful and pointless for him to be alive...
If he couldn't (and never would?) survive without the respirator, what's the point, really. Just more fail to the gene pool and a waste of resources.
I'd imagine it to be rather traumatizing for the parents, though. :/
The parents and loved ones of this child wanted to keep the baby alive, and those wishes should have been respected.
That's a point I generally disagree with, mainly in context with how people treat pets, but I'd expand roughly the same view to young children. Emotions distort the perception of the situation.
Then again, it could come to a point where any baby could be euthanized and whoever's in charge could make up whatever reason for it s/he wanted.
... Moral discussions, my mixed opinions fail at them.
it appears that the British government is making the decisions on the right to live or die.
Ultimately, it was the judiciary who made the descision not the executive. The British courts and the British governments are separate.
This is a violation of so many freedoms. The parents and loved ones of this child wanted to keep the baby alive, and those wishes should have been respected. This is a gross violation of parental rights.
There have been plenty of cases like this before, in which doctors and lawyers from both sides have made the case, and the side advocating euthanasia won. The child could not have survived without being on a ventialtor 24 hours a day. The child was also in severe pain for a lot of the time. NHS doctors working with the child testified at how poor a quality of life the child would have led who are much more qualified and unbiased than the parents could have been. I see no serious issues here. I am much more worried about some other anti terrorist legislation than I am at this with regards to freeedoms of citizens.
This is a gross violation of parental rights.
To expand on this point, there is no codified British constitution. Due to Parliamentary Sovreignty any government can rescind itself from ECHR at any time. Although there are checks and balances, there are no real barriers to any government creating legislation on the subject, such is the British political structure.
That's a point I generally disagree with, mainly in context with how people treat pets, but I'd expand roughly the same view to young children. Emotions distort the perception of the situation.
Zophia - So you're saying that parents (or pet owners) would keep the child alive, even when it's not in the best interest of the child, because they weren't emotionally prepared to let go?
It's hard to speak to children, especially those too young to even speak, let alone make a decision like that for themselves. but as for adults... you have the option (in America, at least) of creating a Living Will, which would specify your wishes in a certain set of circumstances.
I could create a Living Will indicating that, if I am unable to survive on my own after 90 days of life support, I wish to be unplugged and allow nature to take whichever course it decides.
If you are an adult in this country and don't prepare a Living Will for yourself, your fate can (and should) be decided by your next-of-kin. If they're not emotionally prepared to let you go, you might lay there in a tortured state, unable to communicate your wish to die. Or maybe they'll let you pass after a month, and you want medicine to do everything it can for as long as possible. It's your responsibility to either prepare a Living Will or trust your family's judgment.
As for children... I believe it to be a parent's right to continue life support if he chooses. If he can afford to pay for continued treatment, that's his choice. If he cannot afford the treatment, and there's no fund or charity willing and able to help, I suppose at that point I would allow the hospital administration to determine whether they wish to continue life support. By no means would I support euthanasia, but I think if the parents couldn't afford the continued treatment, it would become a hospital's right to choose whether they will continue life support.
Being the die-hard old-school American I am, the primary moral debate I see here is 'is it the right of the state or the individual to make a life-changing decision?' My answer is, of course, the individual.
That's a point I generally disagree with, mainly in context with how people treat pets, but I'd expand roughly the same view to young children. Emotions distort the perception of the situation.
Good point. You know what else distorts people's morality? Money. It takes a lot of that to keep people alive with respirators and whatnot.
Two things to say: As for this case, I would say the doctors did the right thing. Because being in pain constantly, even though it is a small amount of pain is annoying to say the least. A child growing up with severe pain, and being unable to breathe by himself is cruel, and therefore I think the doctors did the right thing.
Second: The medias have a way of blowing things up distorted. Here in Denmark there was a case where a child drowned because his parents had taken of those cork belts and all that, because they were eating, and then had turned their attention towards the little sister. The kid had then skipped the meal, and had jumped into the water again, drowning without the belt. The lifeguards and the swimming bath was given all fault in this case, even though there was several warnings about keeping an eye on their kids. What I wanted to say is, parents are not always taking their responsibility, or authorities seriously. Even though the doctor probably know best, the paprents will always think they are wrong if they act diffently than the parents want them to.
Sometimes because of emotional distress one fails to see the pain that the person who is sick is going through. The Doctors had no emotional connection to the patient therefore their judgments were not clouded. They knew for certain that the child would live a painful life. It is natural for parents to react the way these parents did. Coming to terms of losing a loved one especially a child is completely unbearable. The Doctors should have tried to convince the parents. They should have laid down all the facts and results of what would happen if they decided to go through with the parents request. Sympathy is obviously shown from the doctors part but when talking especially convincing they should have tried an empathetic approach towards the parents. The parents are still in grieving process so their actions towards the doctors are natural. The Doctors did what they had to do but it doesn't mean they wanted to. The parents should understand that.
Zophia - So you're saying that parents (or pet owners) would keep the child alive, even when it's not in the best interest of the child, because they weren't emotionally prepared to let go?
Yes. Happens all the time. Also with brain dead patients. Relatives often can't bear to agree upon ending the lives of their loved ones.
I don't know whether I agree or disagree with the rest of your post.
Good point. You know what else distorts people's morality? Money. It takes a lot of that to keep people alive with respirators and whatnot.
Oh yes. Good point. Wonder how far money can take a suffering life... But that trail of thought was actually off-topic.
Even though the doctor probably know best, the paprents will always think they are wrong if they act diffently than the parents want them to.
Often~
Funny how it can be the other way around as well. Following whatever a higher ranking person tells you to, just because they know better. *trails off again*
I agree that doctors often know what's best, as they're trained in the field and have seen many more cases of what's going on with a patient, while the patient and his family are usually going through it for the first time. A patient and/or his family will often make emotional decisions, rather than logical ones. Not that we can all go through life basing every decision on rationality. Then we'd be Vulcans, and Vulcans just can't love like we can. :P
There is, and should be, a thing called autonomy. Patient autonomy is the patient's right to choose what treatment she will or will not receive. Doctor autonomy is the doctor's right to administer or not administer certain treatment based on professional opinion. I could show you a paper my old roommate (a Philosophy grad student) wrote on autonomy, but suffice it to say that while there are some issues with autonomy, the system wouldn't work without it.
Funny how it can be the other way around as well. Following whatever a higher ranking person tells you to, just because they know better.
If something is logically, I would say the authorities know best. Like doing what the mods say, because there is a good chance the thing you are doing is wrong, if the mods are warning you.
In this situation they parents would not have the insight needed for taking a responsible answer. In other situations the parents could be right, maybe if the child is older, and they know the traits of the child.
What about in Canada where there is Medicare? It is not the parents paying, but the government.
Personally I want (if the need ever arises) to be pulled off life-support after two weeks. Those resources could be better spent on someone who has better odds and needs it more.
