Hospital can take 11-month-old girl off life support despite her family's wishes

[Jorge Luis Borges]

That's ridiculous.

No, it isn't. It is possible to be compassionate, and concede that death might be the best way forward. But anyone insisting that death is the only appropriate way forward is not exercising compassion at all. Far from it.

Also, I note the insubstantial nature of these responses. It's be more constructive to think your position through and present it.

 

[woodguyatl]

No, i don't think it's child abuse to keep the kid under professional care.

Im sure the parents would eventually come around and agree, but I do not want to open the door to letting strangers make the decision. That's going nowhere good, especially if we eventually get Gov't run healthcare that would certainly be strained here almost from the get go.

I wonder who is paying for this expensive care.

 

[Happy Man]

No, it isn't. It is possible to be compassionate, and concede that death might be the best way forward. But anyone insisting that death is the only appropriate way forward is not exercising compassion at all. Far from it.

Also, I note the insubstantial nature of these responses. It's be more constructive to think your position through and present it.

correct.

they demand death because of convenience and cost.

 

[woodguyatl]

I just assumed it's been on the taxpayer dime the entire time already. Since day one. Am I wrong? They don't mention costs or private insurance, so...

If the family is uninsured or underinsured it is entirely possible the hospital is eating the costs. I've not seen the answer.

 

[Pseudo Sane]

Sometimes, access to modern medicine is as much curse as blessing.

 

[Simian Raticus]

If the level of suffering that child is experiencing is being described accurately, then the parents aren't protecting their child, they're protecting themselves from the pain of loss.

 

[PHATV]

If the family is uninsured or underinsured it is entirely possible the hospital is eating the costs. I've not seen the answer.

I'm assuming medicaid because they are on public assistance or nothing at all. I could be wrong. But I doubt it.

If her parents were employed and had medical coverage through their jobs, the insurer would make a decision at some point (long ago) and they wouldn't need everyone to be in agreement to halt treatment. She would already have been buried and mourned.
The hospital isn't eating 11 months of that at what $150,000/month? More? No chance, IMO.

I hope she shocks everyone and begins breathing on her own and such, but it seems like they're just prolonging the inevitable---and at great cost to someone.

 

[RetiredSlave]

The family will eventually make the right decision, difficult as that may be. Also the government does a piss poor job regarding health so they can keep decision making to the individual or legal guardian as far as Im concerned. Mandatory vaccinations and high fructose corn syrup for all etc. etc.

 

[Takes_Two_To_Tango]

All I had to read is this part "The hospital planned to remove her from life-support after her physicians said she is suffering and her condition is irreversible."

It's just pointless and inhumane to make that girl still live knowing there know way for her to survive. You're just prolonging the sheer agony. That's just selfish and it it shows clearly lack of compassion.

 

[spin]

The family will eventually make the right decision, difficult as that may be. Also the government does a piss poor job regarding health so they can keep decision making to the individual or legal guardian as far as Im concerned. Mandatory vaccinations and high fructose corn syrup for all etc. etc.

On the other side, don't hospitals and doctors have some rights to decision making?

No doctor wants to perform surgery because the child will highly likely die during, and then they are potentially liable. This isn't stated anywhere, I'm making this assumption for the sake of discussion. They should have that right. Or no?

So now all the rest of the hospital staff can do is the simply prolong her death sentence. In the form of harmful treatments that are only designed to hold out for a cure, which it is now known is never coming.

So, does each individual staff member, and the staff as a whole never have a right to say I want to stop harming this individual. To decide if they want to be involved?

So the family has the right to decide if they want to keep their child living, but does that mean they have the right make others participate in that?

 

[ocean size]

Rough situation. I don't have a good answer.


There are a lot of examples of people with no chance making it.

I'll bet you ten of my dollars to one of yours here. Seriously, this child will suffer to death.

 

[RetiredSlave]

On the other side, don't hospitals and doctors have some rights to decision making?

No doctor wants to perform surgery because the child will highly likely die during, and then they are potentially liable. This isn't stated anywhere, I'm making this assumption for the sake of discussion. They should have that right. Or no?

So now all the rest of the hospital staff can do is the simply prolong her death sentence. In the form of harmful treatments that are only designed to hold out for a cure, which it is now known is never coming.

So, does each individual staff member, and the staff as a whole never have a right to say I want to stop harming this individual. To decide if they want to be involved?

So the family has the right to decide if they want to keep their child living, but does that mean they have the right make others participate in that?

Hear that, and in a thread subject situation its a tough call. I dont disagree that doctors shouldnt have a say particularly without waived liability. However a matter of significant importance is the nature of their oath. Part of it is do no harm, so what happens in event of damned do or damned dont? Nothing but a broken conscience?

 

[spin]

Hear that, and in a thread subject situation its a tough call. I dont disagree that doctors shouldnt have a say particularly without waived liability. However a matter of significant importance is the nature of their oath. Part of it is do no harm, so what happens in event of damned do or damned dont? Nothing but a broken conscience?

that what made this such a quandary to me. it seems either way is harm, so what then?

 

[ocean size]

No, i don't think it's child abuse to keep the kid under professional care.

Im sure the parents would eventually come around and agree, but I do not want to open the door to letting strangers make the decision. That's going nowhere good, especially if we eventually get Gov't run healthcare that would certainly be strained here almost from the get go.

But it isn't strangers making the decision regarding the parents care. It is professional strangers making the decisions on the care they are rendering. Doctors have to have this right based on medical ethics/hippocratic oath lines.

Administering 'care' in this case is causing continuing agony with no future benefit. Care might as well be taser shocks and hot sauce in her eyes.

Similar situation comes up with cancer patients on life-extending drugs - towards the end the drugs may be causing more harm than good and the doctor ends the treatment.

Also I should add that if the judge was forcing the hospital to keep the child alive and break medical ethics, that is just as much 'the government stepping in'

 

[RetiredSlave]

that what made this such a quandary to me. it seems either way is harm, so what then?

I dunno. If I was a doctor in that situation Id opt to go along with the families wishes even against my better judgement, while being persistent with letting them know the battle is lost.

 

[Renard]

"Freedom loving" 'Muricans want hospitals to indefinitely host the living-dead bodies of vegetative babies.

I'm picturing a hospital employee giving a tour of the hospital to a new staff member.
Newbie: Is this the neonatal intensive care unit?
Staff: Oh no. That's just our museum of dead babies. The parents can come here to stay stuck in an infinite loop of mourning as the vegetative babies organs' slowly deteriorate, causing agonizing pain, with no hope of ever saving them or making it better.
This is 'MURICA, can't let the man tell you what to do y'know?
Newbie: ...

 

[spin]

I dunno. If I was a doctor in that situation Id opt to go along with the families wishes even against my better judgement, while being persistent with letting them know the battle is lost.

meant that as more rhetorical. my fault.

but as far as being the doctor, the parents are shown to be irrational, so that's not a good situation to just hope they don't blame you.

second, can a doctor ethically or legally purposely perform an action, the surgery, that will kill someone?

 

[AGGAMEMNON66]

I’m not touching this one. My heart goes out to that family.

 

[RetiredSlave]

meant that as more rhetorical. my fault.

but as far as being the doctor, the parents are shown to be irrational, so that's not a good situation to just hope they don't blame you.

second, can a doctor ethically or legally purposely perform an action, the surgery, that will kill someone?

Not without consent?

 

[I am your real dad]

This is a sad tale.

I personally don't think the government should be making decisions for us on anything, much less life or death.

I also understand that we must all die and will all feel the sting of death.

I personally would not see anything suffer.
But its not for me to decide.

I guess it would be for the parents and the ones taking care of the child to decide.

This is tough.
Life is tough.