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

I believe that the vast majority of Doctors who work with little babies like this genuinely have the best interests of the child in the forefront of each decision they make.

If they have felt strongly enough to go to court - that to me speaks volumes about how much pain this little one was in.

It is IMO so sad that the parents have to face this and that the baby has died. It doesn't though mean that I think the decision was right or wrong. I don't feel I know enough about this.

I wonder how much the cost of care was a factor in going to court.

We dont know all the detail of this case, but I imagine that the Judges decision would have been made in the light of independent medical evidence, rather than just that of the medical team looking after the baby.

Xenia - this case may be of interest to you. In some ways this is the other side of the coin to Baby OT:

link
and another

In this case the team looking after this woman couldnt bring themselves to switch off her ventilator so she had to be transferred to another hospital to die.

I agree with wannabe.

I really don't agree with this:

"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."

I know people who have been doing it for 30 odd years (and others doing it for 10-15 years) and they don't wish their child's death.

Doctors are the last people I would want making 'value of life' or 'quality of life' judgments for someone with profound and multiple disabilities. I don't think the medical model really copes with that.

I do hate it when on these threads there is always somone who uses a snapshot of somone elses life to prove their case.

Wasn't there a man with md or similar who went to court to fight for the right to have his feed tube left in place?

IMO the removal of a feeding tube is far more controvercial than the switching off of a ventalator as the process is far more drawn out. I remember when that woman in the states had a feeding tube removed (the husband went to court to have the tube removed iirc and the parents contested it) and I felt very uncomfortable with the thought of that, esp as it took her over a week to die.

it's very scary.

The american woman was Terri Schiavo, and her feeding tube was removed after she'd been considered to be pvs for several years. Apparently the feeding tube had been ordered to be removed before and it took a while before it actually happened.

When it did it took an awfully long time for her to die, and I remember thinking then that it was barbaric.

My grandmother died after removal of a feeding tube and it did take a very, very long time. I think it takes a particularly long time if someone is in a pvs.

Mrsturnip my mum's partner died from throat cancer a couple of years ago, she eventually died because they took out her feeding tube. There were alot of comments at the time that we wouldn't allow and animal to starve to death.

A really sad case and so difficult for all concerned. I think it's very difficult to analyse too much based on what is reported in the media but (excuse the fact it's from Wiki) this link gives a basic overview of the priciples which underpined the court decision about Tony Bland and which is generally applied to cases of a similar nature now. one of the key points is about 'what' constitutes medical treatment, and if I recall correctly (It's a long time since I studied this so forgive me) food and fluids was defined as 'not' constituting 'medical' treatment and was seen rather as a basic need if that makes sense.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Bland