Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
News
Original poster

parents lose right to keep their baby alive, right or wrong discuss

63 replies

SparklyGothKat · 21/03/2009 00:33

uk.news.yahoo.com/21/20090320/tuk-parents-lose-bid-to-keep-baby-alive-6323e80.html

Very sad case, where the baby has no real life, doctors want to stop treatment, parents fought to keep him alive, high courts have ruled that doctors should stop treatment.

I am undecided on this, can see both sides

OP posts:
JackBauer · 21/03/2009 00:43

I was thinking of starting a thread on this but am the same as you, I don't really know what to think, I can totally see both sides, it's very

bettany · 21/03/2009 07:19

Very sad. Apparently the debate focused on the level of pain the baby was suffering. The parents thought he wasn't always in pain and had moments of pleasure and that they wanted to fight for his "humanity and worth". Who would want to be a judge in such a case?

mm22bys · 21/03/2009 07:43

If the baby is in pain, with no prospect for recovery, then right.

Poor parents, poor baby.

The worst thing is, the condition the little boy has, mitochondrial disorder, is in most cases inherited, and in a very many number of cases, it is inherited from the mother's mitochondria, which means all their children will be affected (to a greater or lesser extent....). (Mitochondrial disease can also be inherited through a nuclear mutation, with an unknown percentage of children affected - 100% or 50% or 25%)

So they are probably aware this could be there one and only chance of having a child....

mm22bys · 21/03/2009 07:44

(sorry for typo)

moondog · 21/03/2009 07:45

The parents probably have no concept of life caring for a severely disabled child.I see the unimaginable strain it put on people every day in my work.
A day spent in one of the family homes I visit (when all the 24 hour care of the NICU unit is gone and it is just the family and if lucky, a few hours respite a month)might make them rethink.

JollyPirate · 21/03/2009 07:50

There was a similar case a few years ago and the baby survived. The last I heard the parents had separated and the child is now in long term care as neither parent could cope. Horrific circumstances and my heart goes out to any parent having to face this situation.

tatt · 21/03/2009 07:57

if the baby is in pain most of the time then even if there are moments of pleasure they may not compensate for the pain. I would not want a life like that so think the judge did the right thing.

If I was living with constant pain, no prospect of improvement and still found life satisfying maybe I'd feel differently.

SoupDragon · 21/03/2009 08:05

I think it's right If they are sure the baby is in intolerable pain then it isn't right to keep him alive artificially. Even for moments of pleasure - is it OK if these are vastly outweighed by large amounts of pain?

A horrendous decision to make and I don't think it's one any parent could make. I rather suspect I would be fighting to keep my child alive if I found myself in a similar position.

Horrendous thing to have to face.

Lindenlass · 21/03/2009 08:09

Maybe the parents wanted the decision taken out of their hands? Can you imagine making the decision to let your baby die? It must be just terrible. Terrible seeing them in pain, but terrible thinking that you are the one in control of that.

Of course the parents, if they found it too hard to say to let him die, they'll not be able to say they're pleased the judge said to do it.

FAQinglovely · 21/03/2009 08:14

Agree with Soupy - I also think it's the right decision, but as she says wwhat parent wouldn't want to fight for their child to stay alive? I too would fight if it was my child, even if the rest of the world around me could see that it was the "wrong" (horrible word - I don't mean it that way) thing to do in the child's best interests.

wannaBe · 21/03/2009 09:03

this is a totally different case from the Charlotte Wyat case though.

In the case of Charlotte Wyat, the doctors wanted to not resussitate her if she arrested.

But in the case of this baby, he is actually being kept alive - he is on life support.

This isn't, IMO, a quality of life issue so much, after all there are people with severe disabilities who live in constant pain but who do not need artificial means to keep them alive, and no-one would argue that it was the best thing to kill them because of their quality of life or lack thereof, iyswim.

For me this is about the fact that essentially, nature would not allow this child to survive. Once the life support is switched off, he will die.

So is it right to artificially keep someone alive who will never recover, never be able to survive without those artificial means? I'm not sure that it is.

iwontbite · 21/03/2009 09:14

agree with wannabe, and tbh if h e needs the ventilator to be alive then someone, somewhen along the line IS going to have to make the decision to turn it off. he can't be kept on it indefinitely

I know that I wouldn't want to be kept alive in those circumstances, and I don't necessarily think a child should be either.

that said, I can understand not wanting to make the decision to switch life support off

SoupDragon · 21/03/2009 09:23

Wannabe, I think that if someone has a quality of life but is being kept artificially alive it would be fine to keep them alive. This poor baby doesn't so I think it is best to let nature take its course

I agree with your comment about not killing someone who is not being kept alive though. That is a step too far.

purepurple · 21/03/2009 09:24

very sad
but it's not really a life is it?

I think the right decision has been made

wannaBe · 21/03/2009 11:05

quality of life is very subjective though isn't it? Because we judge someone else's quality of life by our own standards... And what for one equals a full life to someone else equals no life and not worth living.

I guess the question to be asked is, if the baby were to be kept alive, who would that be for? Would it be because he has a full and active life ahead of him? Or would it be for the parents, who (understandably) cannot bear to let him go?

Sometimes it is the right thing to do to allow someone to die.

jellybeans · 21/03/2009 11:17

Nature wouldn't let alot of people live without intervention such as diabetics etc. It's a tough one and without being in the parents shoes I can only guess.

MrsMattie · 21/03/2009 11:19

I can't imagine what those parents must be going through. I don't know enough about the baby's condition, but from what I do know, my guess is that it probably is time to withdraw treatment/support and let the poor little mite go.
I can totally understand why the parents might feel differently, though. What a horrible thing to go through

bronze · 21/03/2009 11:26

Lidenlass I wondered the same thing. Now they can feel they did everything they could for their child. Some people might say doing the best for your child isn't necessarily keeping them alive in pain but at least the parents now know that whatever happened it wasn't their choice.
I don't envy the doctors in these cases. I wouldn't want to be in their shoes ever.

NotPlayingAnyMore · 21/03/2009 11:32

moondog - "A day spent in one of the family homes I visit (when all the 24 hour care of the NICU unit is gone and it is just the family and if lucky, a few hours respite a month)might make them rethink."

I agree - it should do, but some people could see a day of most things and think they could handle it, whereas it's doing it day after day which is the real grind

wannaBe · 21/03/2009 11:41

I don't think that parents are able to make a decision like that rationally.

As parents, our instinct is to bring life into the world and to nurture that life. It goes against every parenting instinct to allow that life to end.

Also, fighting for a child's life, is it for the future life of that child? or for the here and now, because you cannot bear to see that child slipping out of your life - now?

In the case of Charlotte Wyat, her parents went to court over and over and over again. They gave interviews to the press, their message was clear, they wanted their child to live. But when it came to the crunch and Charlotte was released from hospital they felt unable to cope and she was put into foster care. . So one can't help wondering, when they faught hard for Charlotte's life, did they really ever consider that she might come home one day? Or did they fight to keep her alive for as long as they could, in the belief that she would never come home and that they would never really be faced with the reality of caring for her?

alicecrail · 21/03/2009 11:41

When i first heard it on the radio this morning, my initial thought was "poor parents" but even more so poor baby, in pain and being kept alive because the parents think he is having some moments of relaxation and joy.
But then later they mentioned that some nurses had agreed with the parents, which made me think perhaps the doctors are being too hasty.

I do think that sometimes stories like this shouldn't be broadcast simply because they will never contain all of the facts and many people think because they have read the story in the paper they can make a judgment on it and blame the parents/doctors/judge for their decision.

I am not slating any of you by the way, this is just my personal opinion that it is very sad and none of the general public is qualified to judge iyswim?

FAQinglovely · 21/03/2009 14:20

little "OT" has died this morning after the took him off the ventilator here

Original poster
SparklyGothKat · 21/03/2009 14:29

Its so sad. I can't imagine what the parents are going through

OP posts:
MarlaSinger · 21/03/2009 14:30

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

StarlightMcKenzie · 21/03/2009 14:33

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

Swipe left for the next trending thread