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.
You agree with my ex that the parents secretly don't love their child and are just pretending? REALLY?
You are wrong. I know these people, and you are very, very wrong. They love their son. You should have seen my friend when she thought she was going to lose her boy. That sorrow was not a pretense.
And a child who is disabled is not necessarily suffering. It bothers YOU to see them. They likely are not even aware of how people like you and my ex view them.
I don't believe in heroic measures to save someone whose quality of life would be nil, but if the child lives without intervention and the parents love him or her, who are you or anyone else to say their life should be terminated?
There is love and there is love. Men are from Mars and Women are from Venus. The percentage of marriages that survive the death of a child is tiny for exactly this reason. And yes, it would bother ME to see a child of mine in that condition. Thank ... I'm very, very happy that they were born healthy, despite the fact that their mother refused an amnio (at age 36) and only went for one sonogram. There is not necessarily suffering, and there is suffering that doesn't begin until after your parents are dead and there is no one left alive to run interference for you in a cold, cruel world. This separate issue of why men and women often fall on opposite sides of this should be explored in another thread, I think. It must have been a woman, I suspect, who wrote that earlier post of living with a sibling severely disabled and missing out on a LOT of life and love as a result of everyones time and energy (and money) going into that one life. Nonetheless she is still oriented towards keeping severely disabled children from... from being allowed to die. A man would have the opposite opinion after a childhood like that. Count on it.
VERY well said (especially what I bolded). That's it in a nutshell.
And that's why the proposal is so very dangerous. Severely crippled? How about the servicemen and women who return from combat without legs and arms? They are absolutely severely crippled. Do we want to put a pillow over their faces?
Helen Keller was blind and deaf after an illness as a young child. She was also very intelligent, and was able to contribute greatly to the world with her writings.
And that's why the proposal is so very dangerous. Severely crippled? How about the servicemen and women who return from combat without legs and arms? They are absolutely severely crippled. Do we want to put a pillow over their faces?
Helen Keller was blind and deaf after an illness as a young child. She was also very intelligent, and was able to contribute greatly to the world with her writings.
Stop and think people.
Sorry. The quote was, "But a child, sick and suffering? Severely crippled?" i took that to mean sick and suffering AND severely crippled. I did not mean that I would support killing anyone just because they were ONLY crippled. (As I made clear in another post in which I said I would not support killing anyone just because they had Down's Syndrome or cerebral palsy, for example.)
For me, the key word is SUFFERING -- and by that I mean extreme and unremitting (or almost unremitting) suffering with no reasonable hope of relief EVER.
I have never heard an adequate explanation as to why many people think it is okay to euthanize animals who are suffering and have no hope of cure, but not humans -- unless, of course, the person who is suffering would rather suffer than be put to death.
Last edited by katharsis; 08-06-2015 at 03:28 PM..
Sorry. The quote was, "But a child, sick and suffering? Severely crippled?" i took that to mean sick and suffering AND severely crippled. I did not mean that I would support killing anyone just because they were ONLY crippled. (As I made clear in another post in which I said I would not support killing anyone just because they had Down's Syndrome or cerebral palsy, for example.)
For me, the key word is SUFFERING -- and by that I mean extreme and unremitting (or almost unremitting) suffering with no reasonable hope of relief EVER.
I have never heard an adequate explanation as to why most people think it is okay to euthanize animals who are suffering and have no hope of cure, but not humans -- unless, of course, the person who is suffering would rather suffer than be put to death.
Fair enough. I do think in some cases withholding extraordinary medical intervention is the kindest course. I just don't think anybody has the right to decide that besides the parents, with medical input.
Fair enough. I do think in some cases withholding extraordinary medical intervention is the kindest course. I just don't think anybody has the right to decide that besides the parents, with medical input.
There is love and there is love. Men are from Mars and Women are from Venus. The percentage of marriages that survive the death of a child is tiny for exactly this reason. And yes, it would bother ME to see a child of mine in that condition. Thank ... I'm very, very happy that they were born healthy, despite the fact that their mother refused an amnio (at age 36) and only went for one sonogram. There is not necessarily suffering, and there is suffering that doesn't begin until after your parents are dead and there is no one left alive to run interference for you in a cold, cruel world. This separate issue of why men and women often fall on opposite sides of this should be explored in another thread, I think. It must have been a woman, I suspect, who wrote that earlier post of living with a sibling severely disabled and missing out on a LOT of life and love as a result of everyones time and energy (and money) going into that one life. Nonetheless she is still oriented towards keeping severely disabled children from... from being allowed to die. A man would have the opposite opinion after a childhood like that. Count on it.
You make some good points, but I still take issue with the idea that you think the parents secretly don't love their child and are just pretending to care about him for the sake of appearances. No matter how complex and conflicting the emotions may be that they carry, I can see that they truly love their son. Perhaps exactly because I don't know if I could love to that depth were I in their shoes.
Fair enough. I do think in some cases withholding extraordinary medical intervention is the kindest course. I just don't think anybody has the right to decide that besides the parents, with medical input.
True story. My mother was a nurse mid-wife for many years in Jamaica in the 1930's. She told me that they on many occasions told mothers of severely deformed babies that their babies were stillborn or had died shortly afterwards when in fact they were not or had not. They did not feed these children and allowed them to die because they would not have had any chance of even a mediocre existence in rural Jamaica. She and other nurses did not even tell the doctors what they were doing. She has absolutely zero guilt about this. If the parent(s) had been given the right to decide they would have to a one said "no, do not euthanize my baby". What else are they going to say?! It's even hard for parents who are given the results of an amnio saying "positive for Down's Syndrome" to terminate the pregnancy. Just a bundle of cells and there is already a protective instinct. Baby in the delivery room months premature... ... just saying. I don't have answers. But I don't think you can expect much objectivity from brand new parents. I suppose there is an implied "but some objectivity would be useful in these kinds of situations". I neglected to mention in an earlier post that the toll on marriages as a result of severely disabled children is actually higher than the toll from ones who die from accidents or short illnesses. Men usually see the situation very differently from their wives and the disconnect ends the marriage.
I think quality of life (not simply life itself) is the most important factor. For me, personally,I think children that are born with such severe disabilities that they will never function without constant medical intervention and will never have a good quality of life...
I'm not going to attempt to define it for anyone else. I know for myself what quality of life I would want my children to have, and I know what kind of quality of life I want to have - and have informed my kids of my wishes.
I'm not going to attempt to define it for anyone else. I know for myself what quality of life I would want my children to have, and I know what kind of quality of life I want to have - and have informed my kids of my wishes.
I agree with this and I wouldn't get into the "define quality of life" debate either. There are obviously going to be extremes and it's impossible to really discuss it. I just know it when I see it when it come to me and mine. That's all anyone can say.
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.
