Posted on 01/04/2020 8:05:27 PM PST by Morgana
Her heart rate was extremely irratic 40’s to 150’s. Blood pressure also extremely irratic. Temperature would frequently soar to 40’s c. We would culture everything, no infection. I believe it was due to brain stem damage.
Maybe she wasn’t suffering, per se, but the damage to her brain from the cardiac arrest was irreversible. There was nothing anyone could do about that.
It’s not murder if it cannot function on its own. The baby is being prevented from following her path God chose for her. If it’s his will that she lives, turn off the machine. If not, she will be going to a much better place with a much better life.
10 days seems awfully short time to get anything legally accomplished.
The "10 day rule" doesn't seem to have been applied literally, since they have had since November to find another facility.
Yes. I remember. And Jahi McMath was finally removed from life support on June 22nd, 2018 after the internal bleeding resulting from both liver and kidney failure, could not be stopped. While the family claimed she was improving and moving on command, it’s hard to say if her movements were involuntary or not. The bottom line is that she never came off the ventilator to breath on her own and her heart only kept beating because of the ventilator and she never regained consciousness.
"To keep her alive, doctors and nurses must keep her on a constant stream of painkillers, sedatives, and paralytics. As a result, Tinslee is paralyzed at all times," the hospital told BuzzFeed News. "Even with medication and support, Tinslee has 'dying events' 2–3 times per day. When she is in distress, Tinslee crashes and aggressive medical intervention is immediately necessary, which causes even more pain."
”Officials at the hospital have been in talks with Tinslee's family about her poor prognosis for months.”
As I understand, further surgical intervention for her heart defect, even if it would help, is not possible as it would immediately kill the child. She’s already had seven surgeries and three open heart operations.
”The cardiac intensive care doctor said that for the first five months of Tinslee's life doctors had hope she might one day at least be able to go home. But Duncan said there came a point when doctors determined they had run out of surgical and clinical options, and that treatment was no longer benefiting Tinslee. ”
”Duncan said last month that the girl would likely die within half a year, and noted the hospital has made 'extraordinary' efforts to find another facility for her. ”
This does not sound like a case of the hospital and doctors giving up on the child, or wanting to hasten her death for ghoulish or financial reasons, but the simple fact is that there is nothing more that can be done for her and that further treatment, including keeping her on life support is both futile and cruel.
Sure they could keep her on life support longer but to what end? The poor little child is dying and will certainly die. The question is where to draw the line between what is technically possible with modern medical advances and what is ethically called for. How many times a day must this poor child be subjected “aggressive medical interventions” every time she crashes?
I understand the mother doesn’t want to accept this, I really understand not wanting to let go of her baby. But it is doubtful after reviewing the child’s medical records, that any other facility is going to be willing to take her as it sounds like her condition may be so fragile that even moving her to another may not really even be an option.
Sad situation. Thank you for explaining. I guess if they take her off life support and she survives that will be miraculous.
If they or their insurance can not or will not pay, should the collective society then pay?
There's only so many hospital beds, so many life support machines, and all the while this baby is using one, it is denied to another person who might be able to benefit.
And we're not even talking about the financial costs.
You said in your post #14 that "she suffered so much" at the same time you described her as having the consciousness of plant. You can't have it both ways. In either case, it sounds like you are in the wrong line of work if you really are a nurse. I wouldn't wish a "caregiver" with the kind of attitudes you have expressed here on anyone.
That issue isn't discussed in the article so it is a non-sequiter to the discussion and nothing more than hypotheical conjecture as an argument. This baby's life is worth as much as anyone's life, and the value everyone else's life is cheapened if this child's life is deemed unworthy of support.
This utilitarian appraisal of human life is usually only employed by socialists so I am surprised to see it on this forum. Suffice it to say, there isn't anyone in Dallas or Fort Worth being denied lifesaving medical treatment because of a lack of hospital beds. Your argument is therefore completely fallacious.
And we're not even talking about the financial costs.
This argument alone speaks very poorly of your personal values and morality. Suffice it to say that the value of this poor child's life is worth at least as much as your own life or as much as the life of anyone you happen to love.
“That issue isn’t discussed in the article so it is a non-sequiter to the discussion and nothing more than hypotheical conjecture as an argument. “
Completely absurd as it is a reasonable and plausible inference.
It’s just a question you won’t answer.
That’s OK. Cognitive dissonance is sometimes best left alone.
Your assertion is without any factual basis in evidence in this discussion. Do you foolishly believe that only poor people get sick? Your otherwise sociopathic argument that only babies of fiscal means are worthy of life sustaining measures is intrinsically based on a an empty premise.
It’s just a question you won’t answer.
I answered it directly in my post #33. I'll repeat it for you: "This baby's life is worth as much as anyone's life". However, given your your poor comprehension I'll now answer it even more bluntly for you: this dying baby's life is clearly worth far more than your life or the life of anyone who shares your mercantile valuation of human life.
That’s OK. Cognitive dissonance is sometimes best left alone.
You have been shown to use fallacious and illogical arguments in your posts #29 and #35. Although it is clear from your usage of the term that you do not accurately understand what the phrase cognitive dissonance actually means, you are the only one who has demonstrated it in this discussion. Sadly, it isn't even the most serious personal failing you have exposed. Anyone with such a mercenary appraisal of a baby's life is themselves wretchedly pathetic.
Having once shared this kind brutal libertarian feeble-mindedness myself, I hope that someday you too will see and repent of this soul-jeopardizing error.
“Your otherwise sociopathic argument that only babies of fiscal means are worthy of life sustaining measures is intrinsically based on a an empty premise. “
You imagined that. You are making a false accusation, bearing false witness.
I didn’t even allude to such a thing.
From Mariner's post #8:
"Committing assets" is a financial decision since the availability of medical resources in the long term is only limited by the amount of money expended to buy them. Although you may not know what "cognitive dissonance" means, you sure are good at it!
My wife and I lost a child at 6 months. No matter how hard we prayed and wished for him to live it was not in God’s plan for him to live. I pray for the parents of this child and hope God will grant them peace that they will know the child is in heaven.
Cite a quote where I state that only babies of fiscal means are worthy of life.
Or crawl back into your fetid hole and STFU.
Liar.
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.