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.
If it was my child I would remove the life support. I have lost a child so yes I know the pain involved. It is absolutely devastating to lose a child but it's pure selfishness to allow someone to suffer long term with no hope of a decent quality of life. Remove the life support and allow nature to take its course.
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.
From what I've read the child has been living in the hospital all her life hooked onto machines. I believe the child is the hospitals child...the decisions the family would make are not based on reality. Unless they have that child in their possession, which they never had, nor will, it doesn't seem that it's their child.
I'm sorry this child must endure pain and suffering every day....and I think it's caregivers...the hospital...should be the ones listened to regarding her health and quality of life.....just my opinion.
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.
So, only people who are paying for their health care are allowed to make end of life decisions? What if you have private insurance? Does the insurer get to make the decision regarding continuing life support when they deem that you no longer have a quality of life that meets their standard? If you have Medicare, does that count as "paying for it"?
Not all of these decisions are made because of money.
Lol.
Let's say a anonymous benefactor steps forward & offers to support her financially until the end of her NATURAL life.
Do you think the family would be left in peace? Doubtful.
That only solves the first issue: What there is to lose by not killing her. It wouldn't take care of what there is to gain from killing her.
Now what if we changed the rules. Nobody steps forward to support her & her DOCTORS & HOSPITALS have to pay the FAMILY to transplant her organs?
They would drop this & let her live. No doubt about it. They neither know, nor do they care if she is in pain. They don't GAF about her potential or her progress. They are not God & that is not their child.
This 'Unplugging is noble' idea is an extremely abnormal 'opinion.' It's not noble & it's not a naturally formed opinion either but nobody ever says 'I think I just succumbed to propaganda' due to someone telling them that they did; so I'm fighting a losing battle.
There is a big advantage to be gained by shifting public opinion away from wanting to live towards wanting to die. I mean; once you think 'I don't want to live like that'; you will project that onto others. Public opinion will favor allowing others to profit from this child's death. How accommodating are we.
From what I've read the child has been living in the hospital all her life hooked onto machines. I believe the child is the hospitals child...the decisions the family would make are not based on reality. Unless they have that child in their possession, which they never had, nor will, it doesn't seem that it's their child.
I'm sorry this child must endure pain and suffering every day....and I think it's caregivers...the hospital...should be the ones listened to regarding her health and quality of life.....just my opinion.
It's the hospital's child? Wow; what luck! Bet they want more just like her! (gag)
And I haven't seen any opinions from any caregivers other than the parents. Just a bunch of doctors & lawyers & admins.
I found a new article that was linked on the Protect TX Fragile Kids FB page. I agree with them, it should be 10 business days, not 10 days period. 4 of those 10 days are weekend days that the mother and/or the advocate groups helping her can't do anything those days, leaving 6 days for them to try to make arrangements. My question, why did they tell her on a Thursday and not a Monday? Things like this should be done on Mondays and given 10 business days.
I wonder how they're making out finding a new place to take her and if she's eligible for a heart transplant. I hate to see them pull the plug if she can get a heart transplant. This little girl isn't brain dead; but I'm sure they'd want her mother to donate organs...
Let's say a anonymous benefactor steps forward & offers to support her financially until the end of her NATURAL life.
Do you think the family would be left in peace? Doubtful.
That only solves the first issue: What there is to lose by not killing her. It wouldn't take care of what there is to gain from killing her.
Now what if we changed the rules. Nobody steps forward to support her & her DOCTORS & HOSPITALS have to pay the FAMILY to transplant her organs?
They would drop this & let her live. No doubt about it. They neither know, nor do they care if she is in pain. They don't GAF about her potential or her progress. They are not God & that is not their child.
This 'Unplugging is noble' idea is an extremely abnormal 'opinion.' It's not noble & it's not a naturally formed opinion either but nobody ever says 'I think I just succumbed to propaganda' due to someone telling them that they did; so I'm fighting a losing battle.
There is a big advantage to be gained by shifting public opinion away from wanting to live towards wanting to die. I mean; once you think 'I don't want to live like that'; you will project that onto others. Public opinion will favor allowing others to profit from this child's death. How accommodating are we.
My husband and I made one of the hardest if not the hardest decision a parent will ever have to make and that was to remove our child from life support. Money had absolutely nothing to do with it.
Too bad they can't put everyone who is against stopping life support in a hospital bed and hook them up to a ventilator for a week. Give them a whole week to imagine living their whole life like that with NO HOPE of ever getting out of that bed.
This little girl is NEVER going to get better and her mother is in denial.....and those who encourage that denial, giving her false hope, are despicable.
Just because someone can be kept alive doesn't mean it is ethical to keep that person alive.
I agree. To me, artificially being kept alive is not BEING alive. Some people say doctors should not "play God" but I don't know of any god who created life support machines, or intended for humans to "live" that way permanently.
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.