Speckled Frost Posted September 30, 2004 Share Posted September 30, 2004 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3701492.stm Doctors say she should be left to die if she stops breathing again but the parents are determined she should be kept alive. Now a judge will have to decide. Very tough call this one. I think perhaps the parents are too emotionally affected to make the right decision and I feel the medical staff wouldn't give up on her unless it really was futile. The poor baby could be really suffering by being kept alive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxman8180 Posted September 30, 2004 Share Posted September 30, 2004 You know, this is one of these topics where I'm really torn. I opened the thread and was repulsed by the thought of you even bringing up the thought of letting the baby die. And then after thinking for a millisecond, I can see the cruelty in letting a baby suffer when it has no way of expressing pain or fear. I really don't know what would be for the best. Just thankful I'm not in the position of making the call on this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ans Posted September 30, 2004 Share Posted September 30, 2004 I don't really think this should be anyone's decision but the parents. Getting into youthanasia is a very bad thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Speckled Frost Posted September 30, 2004 Author Share Posted September 30, 2004 I hold my hands up. I don't have kids so I can't begin to empathise with what the parents are going through. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Observer Posted September 30, 2004 Share Posted September 30, 2004 That is a terrible decision to have to make and one that could only be made whilst in possession of all the medical facts - hence the court case. I think most people are driven to try and help at all cost, even in the face of dire adversity and apparently little if not no chance of success. I watched a very interesting program a few years ago called 'Salvaging Babies' and I was shocked and saddened to learn that the lengths hospitals will go to and the hospital policies in relation to premature birth, varies quite a lot from area to area. I always just assumed that the level of care would be the same regardless and did not realise that some hospitals may have a policy, say, on premature babies born before a certain gestation. It had interviews with parents that were heartbreaking to listen to, where they had begged for something to be done to no avail and yet others who spoke of the great lengths of medical intervention they had experienced. Slightly off tangent, though however a matter that I hold close to my heart is that it never ceases to appall me that couples can legally abort a child upto 24 weeks gestation. I think this is an antiquated law that has been seriously superceded by medical progress. Babies are born and can survive at that gestation these days. Unless there is a very good medical reason for this to occur, I really don't think it should be an option at all. If it's taken you that long to decide that you do not want a child then you should just have to carry the child and make it available to the vast amount of would be parents who are unable to conceive. Anyway, I'm rambling (ranting?!) now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Speckled Frost Posted September 30, 2004 Author Share Posted September 30, 2004 Oooh, abortion is a whole other can of worms. My nephew was born three months premature and, while small for his age, he is in good health now (aged 11). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ans Posted September 30, 2004 Share Posted September 30, 2004 Slightly off tangent, though however a matter that I hold close to my heart is that it never ceases to appall me that couples can legally abort a child upto 24 weeks gestation. I think this is an antiquated law that has been seriously superceded by medical progress. Babies are born and can survive at that gestation these days. Unless there is a very good medical reason for this to occur, I really don't think it should be an option at all. If it's taken you that long to decide that you do not want a child then you should just have to carry the child and make it available to the vast amount of would be parents who are unable to conceive. I read a lengthy article about this a few months back. Some of the descriptions of the aborted foetuses (and I used the word foetuses loosely, they're actually babies) lying in medical dishes for hours waiting to die, nurses having to watch a baby pass away that could have gone on to live a normal life with proper medical attention. I'm a guy who can sit through Iraqi beheading videos all day and not flinch, I can see images from BME and laugh, but some of the pictures the article conjured up were just horrifying and stomach churning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted September 30, 2004 Share Posted September 30, 2004 Some interesting points from a place considering euthanasia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Observer Posted September 30, 2004 Share Posted September 30, 2004 Euthanasia is a life choice decision - those babies have no choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
puddy Posted September 30, 2004 Share Posted September 30, 2004 My niece was premature and spent the first few months of her life in intensive care following a complicated birth. I don't want to say how old she is incase anyone knows her but she's handicapped, everyday life is a struggle and she will never be independent, but despite this none of us would ever be without her, as unfair as her life may seem there is little sadness. I watched a very interesting program a few years ago called 'Salvaging Babies' and I was shocked and saddened to learn that the lengths hospitals will go to and the hospital policies in relation to premature birth, varies quite a lot from area to area. I always just assumed that the level of care would be the same regardless and did not realise that some hospitals may have a policy, say, on premature babies born before a certain gestation. It had interviews with parents that were heartbreaking to listen to, where they had begged for something to be done to no avail and yet others who spoke of the great lengths of medical intervention they had experienced. I told just about everyone I know to watch this programme and then missed it myself (doh!). Some members of my family were deeply touched by this. Especially by the parents of a severely handicapped boy who admitted that had they known how bad their son's disabilities were going to be, they would have allowed him to die naturally at birth, as he would have done. A very brave thing to admit to feeling and it's something the parents wouldn't have thought about all those years ago. It really makes me think about how far we should go to play God. I only hope the outcome of this new case, whatever it is, is for the best of the little girl. But I would like to think that the final say is with the parents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Observer Posted September 30, 2004 Share Posted September 30, 2004 It was a deeply moving documentary - I always remember the couple who sat with their baby for hours who was breathing unaided. They desperately wanted help and were sure that he was strong and 'a fighter' but the hospital policy was not to intervene with babies born before 'x' weeks (may have been 25, but not entirely sure now) Had they been in a different area he would have received full treatment - and yet the other side of the coin was the case you describe where medical staff seemed to lose sight of the objective (health) and repeatedly intervened at great length with the result being a severely handicapped child, though living. Ans, I have read/watched much about late abortion and yes it is truly sickening. The fact that the mother actually has to be induced and 'give birth' indicates enough - and the resultant expelled foetus equates to nothing more than medical waste despite the fact that it was alive when born and struggled to remain so for a time. And yet a stillborn baby born just a few weeks later (28) is legally recognised as a person and must be registered (birth and death) with all the necessary ceremony. I am not pro life to such an extent that I would ban all abortion, but I do think that 3 months (roughly the gestation a D & C is viable) is long enough to have made that choice. Most everyone knows that at 12 weeks the child is fully formed, including fingerprints (!) and needs only to mature. After such time I think adoption should be the only route unless, as previously stated, there are exceptional medical circumstances. I also have a friend whose son was born at 26/27 weeks - he was 1 pound 10 ounzes and his skin was still transparent. After much care in a special baby unit he is now a very happy and healthy 11 year old. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Speckled Frost Posted September 30, 2004 Author Share Posted September 30, 2004 I also have a friend whose son was born at 26/27 weeks - he was 1 pound 10 ounzes and his skin was still transparent. After much care in a special baby unit he is now a very happy and healthy 11 year old. My sister probably knows your friend then as there's a good chance they'd have been in at the same time, that or you know my sister Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FCMR Posted September 30, 2004 Share Posted September 30, 2004 As a father who has lost a child I can only say that time is not a good healer, you never get over the loss of a child. We lost ours seven years ago and my wife was very ill for the first two years. We now have another child but he does not replace the one we lost, but helps get over the loss. There is not a day goes past when we dont think of the loss. Some people ask of my wife why does she spend so much time and money on his grave. The answer is how much would we have spent to bring him up. Medical science has come a long way over the past ten or so years, but regardless of the pain of a decision to be made the parents must take advice from those that have the best interests of the child . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted September 30, 2004 Share Posted September 30, 2004 You have my sympathy sir. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carter Posted October 1, 2004 Share Posted October 1, 2004 There is only one answer here, you do as much as you can to keep the poor mite alive, only the parents can decide when to let nature take its course. I have looked after so many old folk, kept them going with drugs and oxygen etc. I only stopped when family gave me permission. Please give this family the right to be in control of what they feel is right, for thier child. They will have to live with thier decision and possibly the inevitable consequences for the rest of thier lives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.