Sorry if this has been posted, just curious as to your views...

[Quootiepie]

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/07/06/nbabies106.xml sorry if link doesn't work.

It's about a doctor euthanising (is that a word?) babies that were dying basically, just to forwarn you.

DId you think he was wrong? there was an intresting comment about the parents... let me find it.

bugger, can't get it because of parental controls on my screenname.

Yes, they said that in both cases the parents were not unhappy with the treatment. It sounds like he did it for the right reasons, whether it is legally, morally or ethically right...

My gut feeling is that he wasn't wrong but what would I know? Thankfully I haven't been through anything like that. I just can't imagine what it is like to be a parent in that situation.

i think he did the right thing. and he cared enough abou the suffering of these babies to risk his career.

I think on the available information he did the right thing

Brave man to do it. Even the consent and probably gratitude of the parents in these tragic cases hasn't stopped him being summoned to the GMC. I hope the hearing vindicates his acts in these specific instances. The worry is always with a precedent being set I suppose

I get the impression the babies were dying, and this just speedened up and eased the process for the baby and the parents ...... yes ? if it stopped the pain they were in then i cant see how it is wrong ? however ethically however I can see that there are legal issues ?

Completely agree that he acted in a compassionate way and was right, in the circumstances. I think he was brave to risk his career by doing what he felt was right. But I am concerned that the GMC will be worried about setting a precident. Euthenasia is illegal in this country, and I fear that that is what he will be accused of.

This wasn't like Shipman, who was bumping off perfectly healthy patients. These babies were dying anyway, he made their death less painful and distressing and he did it with the full knowledge and consent of their parents.

Not wrong imo.

No. He was not wrong imo. These babies were moments from death, no hope of recovery. He eased their passing.

It was a compassionate act.

from what ive read, he acted in the best interest of these babies. if it made it quicker and less painful for them that can only be good.

thankfully i have never been in the situation of those poor parents, and they seemed happy with the treatment, so he acted rightly imo. very though.

I wonder what the parents thoughts are!!

It sounds like a compassionate act to alleviate the suffering of the children, and to make the situation as calm and dignified for all concerned.

The fact that the administration of the medication was not noted on the medical notes is worrying.
And I wonder who notified the authorities about it?

I think what he did was not wrong. The decision to withdraw care had already been made, these were babies who were dying and he eased their apparent distress and the distress of the parents.

The GMC found him not guilty of professional misconduct.

First of all, I would like to say that my heart goes out to the families of these babies. The loss of a loved one is a terrible ordeal, and having it dissected in the media can only add to their pain and grief.

Unfortunately, I don't agree with those of you who have posted already, but every is entitled to their opinion. I'm not calling this guy's motives into question - he could not bear to see the distress of the babies and their parents. However, I don't feel that administering pancuronium was the kindest way to deal with this. It is basically a muscle relaxant, stopping respiratory effort as muscles become paralysed. It has no sedative or pain relieving properties. I would not be happy if this was used as part of the withdrawal of treatment in my loved one.

I have never worked in a paed ICU, but in 7 years as an adult ICU nurse I have never seen this drug used in this way. I appreciate that drug usage can be very different in paeds, but this was obviously not standard practice.

Hopefully this case will highlight the need for more standardised planning and delivery of care in cases where treatment is being withdrawn. I'm sure that a paeds nurse would be able to add much more to this debate, but just felt I had to put my two-pence-worth in.

what a thoughtful post - obviously been on the wine this morning!

I can't imagine the situation - I have no idea how I would feel if I were one of the parents.

From where I sit, if he acted with compassion I can understand. But I couldn't do it, nor could I sanction it.

I've been with an adult while they died, I would have refused an offer of 'help' on their behalf, had it been offered. And this was someone who wasn't capable of making their own decision at that point. But I think adults choosing euthenasia is a different debate.

I can't condemn him. But I'm nervous of people like him - at a surreal, shocking and horrific time he made an offer to the parents that they will have to live with too. I'm not sure all parents would be capable of making the right decision (for themselves & their family) then. My worry is that he will think it's correct to continue to make offers to 'help' when a child or baby is moments from death and the parents may not, in my opinion, be in a state of mind to make a 'good' decision.

I am not certain how I feel. I have been in this situation and been given the option of having treatment withdrawn but it is a personal thing that I am not ready to discuss.
However, I agree with the previos post about the use of this particular drug.I feel as a doctor he knew how inappropriate it was to use it.
I also feel that a parent knows their child better than any doctor and if a parent chose to withdraw treatment or even administer something to speed death that they would certainly be prosecuted.
I am angry that he chose to take life, IMO no mortal has this right, parent or doctor.

I think he was right, in the first case it says he spoke to the parents, and in both cases they (the parents) had already agreed to withdraw treatment so IMO it is clearcut case of ending unnecesary suffering.
Very sad, and but very brave of him to do it and admit to it.

From what I read/heard at the time, the drug was administered to relieve "gasping" spasms at a point very close to death that were causing the parents considerable distress. The general feeling among doctors is that by this point the baby is not aware of any pain or discomfort but obviously they can't definitively know this.

I would have wanted the same care and compassion if I'd been in a similar position (god forbid). Hopefully the case will lead to clearer guidelines about caring for babies in the final moments of their lives.

Don't want to sound bolshy about it, but withdrawing treatment means just that - removing any impediments to a natural death. It does not mean adding in a drug that has no therapeutic value just to hasten an imminent death.

These babies would have died later without the pancuronium, but this fact does not justify the doctor's actions in choosing to give this drug.