Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I've never seen a case before, where fully cognitive children were removed from life support against the parent's strong wishes, because the child "didn't have quality of life" or "their condition wouldn't improve".
I've just never seen that before. And I've seen a lot of kids who need round the clock nursing care and anyone who thought to deny that care would be charged with murder.
You've never seen a child die from cancer because treatment could not save him?
We have discussed other cases on this forum where a hospital wanted to discontinue life support from patients who had been shown to be brain dead or in a permanent vegetative state, but I have never seen a case where the hospital intended to withdraw life support from a patient (in this case, a baby) due to an "irreversible condition". As far as I can tell from reading this article, the baby has severe congenital heart disease and is dependent upon mechanical ventilation, yet is not brain dead. That seems like a huge difference to me and I'm pleased that a judge has intervened to allow this family time to locate another facility.
I'm sure some could argue that the baby has no quality of life, but she does have a life and is not brain dead. Her parents should be compassionately counseled regarding her condition and future and allowed to make decisions on her behalf.
Quote:
Originally Posted by the minx
What are death events? Is her heart stopping?
While I think it's time to let the baby go, I don't agree with the blanket 10 day rule. I had a family member on life support last year and the doctors were so quick to try to pull the plug on her after 10 days (Texas). I'm a pretty reasonable person and I was shocked at how callous they were about the situation.
I can't judge the mom for not wanting to let go. I can't imagine being in her shoes.
In bankruptcy law we describe this as "terminal euphoria." In this instance the parents obviously hoped for a healthy child, playing in the yard and having the joys of upbringing. At some point it's over. While I doubt that this is a welfare case, the fact is that society pays a lot of the health care cost, whether through insurance or otherwise.
I have no reason to doubt the verdict that "it's over."
Status:
"I don't understand. But I don't care, so it works out."
(set 19 days ago)
35,669 posts, read 18,040,478 times
Reputation: 50719
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010
You've never seen a child die from cancer because treatment could not save him?
Have you ever seen a child, who has not worsened significantly in months, who was still functioning cognitively normally, removed from life support systems over the expressed very strong wishes of the parent that the support NOT be removed?
I don't know what the answer is here, and I fully understand the argument that the child is in pain and isn't going to improve. That's something to consider.
What really bothers me is the argument I see here, and below news articles, that if the parents can't pay for her treatment, or others advocating for the baby can't pay the full cost of her treatment, she should die.
That chills me.
There are parents who can't pay for a simple appendectomy, or a broken bone, or IV hydration for a child who has a rotovirus. We can not make these profound life/death decisions based on the parent's ability to pay. We're better than that.
You've never seen a child die from cancer because treatment could not save him?
Come on. Cancer is a whole different ball game. Doctors are able to see the cancer has spread, the child is weak, dies naturally. I was with my dad during his whole cancer. Even his last breath.
I read this article yesterday and wonder what dying events are, that require “aggressive intervention†daily. Is her body trying to let go and pass on but she keeps being revived? I find that horrifying.
I read this article yesterday and wonder what dying events are, that require “aggressive intervention†daily. Is her body trying to let go and pass on but she keeps being revived? I find that horrifying.
I highly doubt it's that. Probably more like things along the lines of cleaning out a trach, draining lungs, replacing feeding tubes and other things that require injections, things like that.
I read this article yesterday and wonder what dying events are, that require “aggressive intervention†daily. Is her body trying to let go and pass on but she keeps being revived? I find that horrifying.
Me too but I couldn't find anything on google
Quote:
Originally Posted by ocnjgirl
I highly doubt it's that. Probably more like things along the lines of cleaning out a trach, draining lungs, replacing feeding tubes and other things that require injections, things like that.
Thanks. That makes more sense. I can't see them with a crash cart to revive her multiple times a day
Have you ever seen a child, who has not worsened significantly in months, who was still functioning cognitively normally, removed from life support systems over the expressed very strong wishes of the parent that the support NOT be removed?
I don't know what the answer is here, and I fully understand the argument that the child is in pain and isn't going to improve. That's something to consider.
What really bothers me is the argument I see here, and below news articles, that if the parents can't pay for her treatment, or others advocating for the baby can't pay the full cost of her treatment, she should die.
That chills me.
There are parents who can't pay for a simple appendectomy, or a broken bone, or IV hydration for a child who has a rotovirus. We can not make these profound life/death decisions based on the parent's ability to pay. We're better than that.
The issue is the futility of the treatment. All that is happening now is that her death is only being postponed, and during that time she is in pain from the procedures keeping her alive. No one wants to consider cost, but resources expended on futile care are resources that are not available to treat another child who might get well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roselvr
Come on. Cancer is a whole different ball game. Doctors are able to see the cancer has spread, the child is weak, dies naturally. I was with my dad during his whole cancer. Even his last breath.
Status:
"I don't understand. But I don't care, so it works out."
(set 19 days ago)
35,669 posts, read 18,040,478 times
Reputation: 50719
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010
The issue is the futility of the treatment. All that is happening now is that her death is only being postponed, and during that time she is in pain from the procedures keeping her alive. No one wants to consider cost, but resources expended on futile care are resources that are not available to treat another child who might get well.
She has a fatal, untreatable condition.
I would think if it were going to be fatal within the next, say, 6 months, the hospital would have let this go and not fought it.
It appears there is no end in sight unless they cut her oxygen off.
I would think if it were going to be fatal within the next, say, 6 months, the hospital would have let this go and not fought it.
It appears there is no end in sight unless they cut her oxygen off.
I have read she has a few months left, I don't understand why they're fighting then
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
