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

[SparklyGothKat]

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

very for the parents.

I don't think you can compare treatment like this with the treatment of a diabetic/dialysis patient though. Because a person who relies on certain treatments to help them stay alive does still have a life between those treatments. But this was a baby in a hospital, on a ventalator, aledgedly in constant pain. In fact the doctors described his treatment as "torture".

Tbh on reflection I don't think it's the act of turning off the ventalator itself that is the issue here, but who made the decision. If the parents had made the decision to turn off the life support because they felt their child was in constant pain and had no quality of life, no-one would judge them. In fact people would have huge sympathy for them, and would say how horrible it must be as a parent, having to make that heartbreaking decision.

But because the decision was made on a medical level rather than an emotional one, we feel we have the right to judge those responsible. But is the decision any less valid?

There must be parents who do make such decisions about their sick babies, and yet we don't judge those parents and should never judge those parents.

So why should we judge a doctor who makes the same decision, with the same interests of the child in mind?

I have just heard the baby has died.

I wasn't expecting him to go so quickly.

The poor family.

I think, rationally, the right decision has been made, but agree with those who have said 'would you or could you see that if you were the parents'... I'm not sure I could to be honest.

And, regardless of anything else, I really do feel for OT's mum, having to deal with mothers day without him...

whatever people's views, seems really cruel to withdraw treatment so soon after the ruling.

Should have allowed the parents a bit of time to get used to the fact that there was no further appeal, and no hope from a legal stance.

I agree Riven. I wouldn't want many doctors I've come in contact with making decisions like this for my child.

poor baby and poor family
looking after a severly disabled child is not hell on earth and can be one of the most rewarding jobs a parent can ever have.
I am not sure on my feelings about this case. but I do know i object to the comments like "nature would not let this child survive"
"I realise the poster is not talking in general "
but my dd and rivens and most dc's with cp (oh an prme babies) would not be here if nature was allowed to take controll.

Feel terribly sorry for the parents and for the baby. Maybe the doctors who applied for the court order were right - but it's interesting that some nurses disagreed. The nurses will have spent more time with the baby than the doctors. I wonder if all the doctors involved in his care agreed?

Doctors are only human beings, as fallible as the rest of us, and sometimes their judgments on the quality of life experienced by someone who is severely disabled are not perfect.

However, in this case, going on the facts in the public domain, I couldn't argue with them. Poor baby.

As someone said further down, there's a big difference between a person who needs some level of medical intervention and a person who is only kept alive on a ventilator.

As for Charlotte Wyatt, I really wouldn't judge her parents. They did want to take her home and fought very hard for her life. And eventually they were proved right and the doctors wrong.

Their marriage was destroyed by the strain of that fight and, IIRC, by the horrible treatment meted out by social services, who refused to offer the level of support for the parents that they gave to foster parents. Terribly sad all round.

If we never interfered with nature, I'd be dead as I wouldn't have the drugs that keep me well. As would many people with asthma, diabetes and other conditions that require regular medication and treatment.

However, that is qualitatively different from someone who is only kept alive while being ventilated.

I certainly think that medical treatment is necessary in most instances, and as you say Edam, people with conditions such as asthma/diabetes/epilepsy do rely on drugs/inhalers etc without which they might die.

But the fact this poor baby died so soon after treatment had been withdrawn is clear proof that he was only being kept alive artificially. Essentially, he had a disorder that was incompatible with life. It was only because of the ventalator that he had any life at all, and rightly or wrongly (and tbh none of us really can judge as we don't know him or any of the other people involved in this case) he was considered to be in considerable pain and one doctor even described his treatment as torture.

A line needs to be drawn somewhere, between aiding someone to live, and ensuring they live, at all costs, even if that means they live a life of constant pain and will never leave hospital.

Sometimes it is right to allow someone to die. And there is a difference between allowing someone to die, and killing someone.

wow. You speak with so much certainty about this childs condition wannabe even though you have clearly only read the same articles that everyone else has.

How did it pass you by that many of the nurses as well as the parents considered the child to have long periods where he/she was relaxed and seemed happy?
one doctor described his treatment as torture. I doubt very much that doctor was on the ward on a daily basis spending an entire shift caring for that child.

By your reckoning people who suffer serious accidents and are left dependent on ventilators to breathe should also have treatment withdrawn?

Or my friend who is suffering from motor neurone disease? He is dependent on a ventilator now but wants to keep going to spend a few more weeks with his child. She will be 4 in three weeks.
His condition is also "not compatible with life."

I don't think any of us have the right to decide who is worthy or deserving of life.

that is what worries me.
doctors decide that the life is not worth it.
but they do make mistakes...and I do worry if sometimes, the decisions doctors make are not always medical.

fair point from Christmas there, the doctors will in all likelihood not have spent that much time with him. Would give a little more weight to the views of the nurses who do spend long periods with their patients.

A friend of mine is neonatal nurse and does tell of some cases where she suspects the child will die and she thinks the parents should let the child go - but she would never dream of telling them (doesn't give any information that could identify the family so not breaching confidentiality).

I just don't think it's possible for a parent to rationalise it.

My DH had a DS who died from a mitochondrial condition (similar to OT). He died, despite everything being done by the Drs and nurses, at 4months.

My DH still mourns his loss and marks every birthday, Christmas, anniversary. This was 12+ years ago. He was, and always will be, my DH's son.

I'm simply sorry that the parents didn't get a longer time to say goodbye, when they knew the end of the legal route was here.... And especially sad that his poor mother has to endure mothers day without her son.

but there is a fine line between the right to life, and the right to die.

And the reality is that we none of us know the actual facts of this case - we know only what has been quoted by the parents and by some of the medical professionals involved, but it is all second-hand through the press who let's face it, do put their own spin on things.

At no point have I ever said that anyone should not have the right to live. I do believe however that some people should have the right to die.

Christmas you said "Or my friend who is suffering from motor neurone disease? He is dependent on a ventilator now but wants to keep going to spend a few more weeks with his
child." Of course it is his choice to keep going, but what if he decided he didn't want to? Should he not have the right to ask for the ventalator to be switched off so he can die?

The difficulty with this particular case is that it was a baby not capable of making the decision for himself. Therefore he had people on both sides arguing over what was best for him. And on the parents' side there were also emotional reasons for not wanting to allow him to die.

People will read the facts of the case and will make judgements based on the bits they take from what they've read. For me it was the fact the baby was believed to be in constant pain. And even though it was said that he had periods where he was relaxed and happy, he still returned to constant pain. And he still was never going to get better.

And I still think there's a difference between not allowing someone to live, and allowing them to die, iyswim.

and if you read other thread of mine on mn you will see that I am generally strongly against any suggestion that disability should be iradicated in any way, and that I am even somewhat opposed to prenatal testing and termination on the grounds of disabilities other than those incompatible with life.

But as a parent, I know I personally would not be able to rationally make a decision to withdraw life support from my child, and that if doctors are prepared to go to court to defend their decision to withdraw treatmen, they must have good reason for doing so.

As I said above, if the parents had made the decision we would be saying how brave they were, and nobody would judge them.

Can we not therefore concede that perhaps the doctors were only acting in what they perceived to be the best interests of the child?

so wannabe can you say that the doctors ALWAYS get it right?

Awful horrible thing for everyone, and desperately sad for the parents. Must be one time, though, when taking the decisions away from the parents and the medics and into the court would be right. I would loathe to have to make that decision, but I think it has to be someone outside and not involved with treatment or family who does.

no of course not. But we have to presume that they get it right more than they get it wrong or there is surely something seriously wrong with the medical profession.

Equally you could ask do the parents always get it right? And again the answer would have to be no. Because often the parents' decisions are based on their emotional response, and their need to nurture their child, rather than their rational response.

How utterly heartbreaking for his parents. I wouldn't be surprised if maybe part of them is in a sense relieved that the decision was taken out of their hands. It must have been impossible for them to emotionally distance themselves enough to make such an irrevocable decision - especially as it looks as though it was their only chance to have a child
I think the courts did the right thing, the lo is now free of pain.

if the doctors truly believed the baby's treatment was "torture" then of course they had to switch the life support off immediately.

As a parent I would find it hard to let my child go. As someone who has contributed to a decision to keep a person alive in the past I have seen that this may not always be the best choice.

I'm not sure what the law is. When someone is very ill and going go die if you don't give them food and water that hastens the end. Is that murder in English law or not? Obviously increasing the morphine does so they do die might well be although there will be many who advocate that even that is justified. Is the denial of food and water any less murder than a failure to intervene if they have a heart attack whilst slowly dying?

Are we allowed in the UK to stop intervening if quality of life is poor?

Then the other issue is if it is legal to stop treatment that is keeping someone alive who takes that decision? Can a parent eg fly the baby to a country where doctors will treat it and keep it alive? Could these parents have taken their child home and hired nurses to keep it alive at their own expense?

Desperately sad for all concerned. My thoughts are ith the aparents and personally I think they could surely have extended pain medication to allow Mum onoe Mothering Sunday with her darling baby, but seems not. Terribe tragedy. my inclination is towards the aprents opinion but I know nowhere near enough about this case and am emotion led on it. I also remember some of the comments amde to riven over the years that she has posted,and faith in the ability of Dr's to decide is much marred.

Xenia it is legal to withhold food and water if the person requests it - and some do as the only choice they have if they want to die. A kind doctor would give treatment to ease their passing. That could be challenged in court - but probably wouldn't succeed and I doubt the CPS would see it as in the public interest to take a case.

If you have a heart attack while slowly dying of some other problem there may be a Do Not Resusitate notice on your notes. Resusitation doesn't succeeed as often as suggested on TV.

I have been party to a couple of decisions about the end of life. One was to give morphine to ease pain, knowing that it would hasten death. It was a calm and peaceful death and the right choice. Thankfully no-one challenged the decision.

The second was much more complicated and the realtives disagreed - the person was treated because they would have wanted it. Their life afterwards was so unhappy I'm not sure it was the right decision (and I was one of the ones saying treatment should be given). They could have gone peacefully and happily and survived to experience much pain and suffering. For myself I would choose the pain free death so I would also want that for a child.