Posted on 03/21/2009 7:13:44 PM PDT by managusta
A nine-month-old boy known as OT has died after his parents lost a legal bid to overturn a ruling giving hospital staff the power to stop medical treatment keeping him alive, the parents' solicitor said. Appeal judges upheld a High Court ruling that gave doctors at an unnamed NHS trust powers to turn off the ventilator keeping him alive.
The parents of the seriously ill child earlier said they were "deeply distressed" by a court ruling allowing their "beautiful and beloved boy" to die.
The NHS trust had argued that the boy was suffering intolerable pain as a result of his treatment and condition and had no prospect of recovery.
The Court of Appeal judges refused the couple permission to challenge a decision by Mrs Justice Parker made after a 10-day hearing.
Lord Justice Ward was told the couple had decided to wait outside the courtroom while the ruling was given as they could not face hearing the decision.
He said he would like to have addressed them personally and asked their lawyers to pass on the message that it was impossible not to feel the "deepest sympathy for their predicament".
Lord Justice Ward and Lord Justice Wilson said they would give the reasons for their decision at a later date.
The case echoes the legal battle over the treatment of baby Charlotte Wyatt in 2005. She was given just a five per cent chance of survival but is still alive four years later, after her parents won the right to force doctors to resuscitated her if she fell ill.
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
Coming soon to America under Obamacare. We will pay 2+ trillion dollars to the govt so they can decide for us who lives and who dies.
If we in the U.S. reach the point where the next of kin are no longer making the decisions, we will be in deep doo-doo.
“I consider this an act of murder,”
What, removing the respirator? That was the ONLY thing keeping that child alive. The physical functions weren’t working on their own and showed no signs of ever functioning properly.
Was the baby in coma?
Apparently so. If the automatic breathing responses aren’t working, neither is the brain.
Having to make that decision is gut-wrenching and soul-damaging enough. The fear and painful regret lasts a lifetime.
Having a court dictate it is entirely different, and enraging.
Ain’t Socialized Medicine just grand !”(?)
We have technology that lets us keep some terminally ill people alive almost indefinitely. Does that mean we should artificially keep them alive? Are we morally obligated to do so?
Even in the US, the next of kin have some limits on their decision unless they have unlimited insurance or huge amounts of money to spend on life-extending treatment.
That is a myth.
That’s not the point. We have a case here where the patient has a government-declared right to unlimited medical care, and his parents have the right to direct that care. It’s not any different from a U.S. case where Bill Gates is willing to pay a kid’s medical bills as he’s alive and a court says, “screw you, Bill, and screw you, parents, we’re unplugging him.”
When care is rationed we will all pay the price. Irt’s that simple.
You have heard of anaesthesiology? Not much point to the profession if your ridiculous claim is even remotely true.
Not to mention that the topic of this discussion is the sanctity of life despite limited odds, versus having an accountant on the kill switch reading a statistics report.
HF
Hmmmm, are you a doctor??? Paramedic??? First responder???
You know...Respirator devices are used to give the body a chance to maintain function and regain involuntary functions like normal sinus rhythm (heartbeat) and breathing function...
It appears to be easy for certain medical types to diagnose terminal situations...Thats why you should get second opinions...
I bet you would appreciate a family member (or other advocate) pleading for that, on your behalf...
Or lets let the government decide for you and the rest of us who lives and dies...
All in all it is a tough call...
I heard a song around the end of last year...Can't remember the band, but it had a really odd sound on the rhythm track. Turned out to be a recording of the respirator the lead singer was on during a bout of pneumonia. He's now fully recovered.
Of course, this is academic. The important thing heot only re is that the government is obliterating parental rights and next-of-kin rights, and not only does that mean the medical details are largely irrelevant, it means that advance directives will mean exactly squat.
I wasn’t aware that the government declared a right to unlimited care—I thought the UK government has been openly rationing for years. Plus it wasn’t really the court that made the decision, the court just gave the hospital staff the permission to make that decision.
Yes, but the UK government sold this to their people as a right, which is how it’s being sold to our country today.
As for the fact that the court didn’t technically make the decision, that’s semantics. The court ruled that the rights of parents mean less than the opinions of doctors, and even if the doctors decided to keep treating the kid that’s what the case law is.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.