That's rather selfish, isn't it? Shouldn't the physical welfare of the child trump her feelings?
Yes, I know, that's easy for me to say, as I'm not the one grieving over my dying child. But that's partly the point. The mother is simply incapable of making the right decision here. Her little boy is suffering terribly and someone needs to step in.
Certainly we would step in if the baby were otherwise healthy and she were physically abusing it... well, I believe the hospital is making the case that keeping the baby alive is tantamount to that.
Finally, it is simply NOT the case that the hospital is playing God by letting this baby die naturally. He is only being kept alive through signficant artificial means. No, 4mycountry, they are playing God now by keeping the baby alive.
You're kidding me, right? Lordy, lordy... Oh yes, cherishing every last moment you have with someone you love, whom you know is going to be gone forever soon, is extremely selfish. Shame on her. Shame shame shame. [/sarcasm]
A few years ago, my grandmother was diagnosed with cancer. We were told that she only had a few months to live; there was simply no way she was going to survive. In the end, she did die from it.
We tried chemotherapy (sp?) and other treatments to keep her with us as long as we could. If the hospital had come to us and said, "We're not going to treat her because she's going to die anyway" and gave us a court order, we would be outraged. Who wouldn't?!
And think on this: Is a hospital playing God when it give cancer patients chemotherapy? Perhaps God meant for that person to have cancer; perhaps we have no right to try to save that person. Is the hospital still playing God when it removes cancer from a person's body? ...What if a baby is born with a heart defect - is the hospital playing God if it gives the baby a new heart? Your argument is ludicrous to me.
My grandmother died. Yes, we tried to save her against all odds. Yes, we clung to hope. Yes, we knew we would lose her.
So go ahead and write selfish on my forehead.