ATAR Notes: Forum
General Discussion => General Discussion Boards => News and Politics => Topic started by: ninwa on November 03, 2009, 06:50:38 pm
-
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,26298059-401,00.html
Parents fight over child's right to live
A court will decide whether a baby who is profoundly disabled but mentally alert should be allowed to die.
* Baby unable to move, brain function normal
* Mum, hospital ask to let him die
* Father argues his son should live
A MOTHER and father are locked in a court battle to decide whether their profoundly disabled baby should be allowed to die.
The couple, who have separated amicably, have taken their case to the Family Division of London's High Court.
The court was told Baby RB suffered breathing difficulties within minutes of birth last year as the result of rare congenital myasthenic syndrome (CMS ).
His condition affects the communication of nerves and muscles leaving him deprived of almost all muscle movement. Since birth he has only spent a maximum of 40 minutes breathing without a ventilator, The Daily Mail reports.
The little boy's brain continues to function normally. He is aware of his surroundings, he can see, hear and feel - but his muscles are so incapacitated that he can't even smile. His condition was compared to being "locked in".
The hospital and the mother want one-year-old Baby RB taken off life support, saying his brain function simply worsens his plight.
But the boy's father believes his son might be taken off his ventilator and returned home if surgeons carried out a tracheotomy, which creates an opening in the neck to deliver air to the lungs. He plans to show video footage of Baby RB to the court to support his case that his child should live.
The Sun reported a fresh medical assessment of the boy will be carried out this weekend to determine whether he would be suitable for a tracheotomy.
If the hospital is successful it would the first time that a British court has decided that life support can be withdrawn from a child who is not suffering brain damage.
The hospital's lawyer Michael Mylonas said Baby RB should be allowed "a peaceful, calm and dignified death".
"RB is different from a number of other children who have found themselves before this court in similar circumstances because CMS is not thought to effect his brain function at all," he said.
''The effect is that he has normal cognition and normal brain function.
"Witnesses for the trust will say that the fact is that cognition will simply make his own plight all the more unbearable for him.... As he gets older he will see glimpses of what others are able to do."
He said the essential regular process of "suctioning" the child's lungs, involving disconnection from the ventilator, caused pain, choking and was "akin to ones lungs simply being paralysed".
Solicitors acting for the mother said she had spent every day at her son's bedside since he was born.
"Every day she has seen the pain he experiences just to survive," Anthony Fairweather said outside court.
Mr Fairweather said she had listened to and consulted "some of the best doctors in the world".
"In her mind, the intolerable suffering experienced by her son must outweigh her own personal grief should she lose her child," he said.
-
I'd say that the baby should be the one to make the decision if the condition is not fatal.
The issue at heart here is the allowance of euthanasia. Except not by the will of the patient, but a(n interested) third party. If euthanasia is considered by society (as suggested by the fact it is outlawed) as a bad thing, then why is not this being considered abhorrent?
Or is it because he's a baby?
-
- How is the baby supposed to make any decision? He can't even smile
- The law doesn't necessarily reflect the views of society
-
This is a tough one.
Excalibur, how will you make let the baby make the decision? Wait for him to grow up? And then what... how does he even make a decision when he can't move? I think that would be even more painful for all parties involved as everyone would already have an emotional attachment. The decision has to be made now, as unfortunate as it is.
-
Depends on whether the father is willing to pay for it. It's not a question of "should we let it live" unless someone's agreeing to pay for it in the first place, IMO
And I'm against any outcome where someone is forced to pay for it.
-
- How is the baby supposed to make any decision? He can't even smile
- The law doesn't necessarily reflect the views of society
Sorry, should have been clearer. The baby would need to grow up and make the decision for him/herself. My opinion is that ending your life is not the kind of decision to be made by anyone other than yourself. Yes, there will inevitably pain for the child in question, but we can't make decisions based on the assumption that the child would rather not live in pain - especially a decision of this kind of magnitude.
I do appreciate the fact that laws do not necessarily reflect society's views in practice, as it should in theory. However, questions such as this generally act as a catalyst for discussion and change. We'll see what happens.
I just think it's kind of ironic that people can support this, yet possibly be against euthanasia. It's a bit of a non sequitur if you ask me.
-
I think the kind of people who would support this would also support euthanasia (unless they had no powers of logic whatsoever)
-
I'm with the mother. Though we obviously need to be able to draw a line somewhere, about how disabled a child has to be to warrant this course of (in)action
-
Depends on whether the father is willing to pay for it. It's not a question of "should we let it live" unless someone's agreeing to pay for it in the first place, IMO
And I'm against any outcome where someone is forced to pay for it.
I would suspect that, this being the UK, that it would be paid on the NHS.
-
Depends on whether the father is willing to pay for it. It's not a question of "should we let it live" unless someone's agreeing to pay for it in the first place, IMO
And I'm against any outcome where someone is forced to pay for it.
I would suspect that, this being the UK, that it would be paid on the NHS.
Ah, the NHS. Sacrosanct here, seemingly.
-
It is really difficult. I guess the problem with euthanasia/suicide is that life and technologies and so on can change dramatically in a very short period of time. We don't know what kind of surgeries or cures could be available even 5 years down the track. I think these decisions should take a long-term view into account. Is the pain of waiting worth the potential for innovation? I think in this case, probably not, and therefore think that the child should be allowed to die.
-
They could just cryogenically freeze the baby. Then if a cure is found the baby can start life at the beginning
-
They could just cryogenically freeze the baby. Then if a cure is found the baby can start life at the beginning
Probably more expensive to keep the baby frozen 24 hours a day, for many years?
Plus the water in his body would freeze and form icicles and poke through his blood vessels.