Posted on 06/01/2006 7:20:27 AM PDT by 8mmMauser
DALLAS A mother fighting to keep her baby on life support, despite a hospital's determination that her efforts would be futile, will get two more weeks to find a facility that will take the 10-month-old. A judge had been set to decide tomorrow whether to grant a temporary injunction to stop Children's Medical Center in Dallas from removing Daniel Wayne Cullen the Second from life support. But attorneys for the boy's mother and the hospital agreed yesterday to extend a temporary restraining order for another two weeks.
Attorney Brian Potts, who represents the boy's mother, Dixie Belcher, said he plans to submit the agreement to a judge today.
The baby has had breathing problems since his premature birth and was hospitalized after suffering from a lack of oxygen when he pulled out a breathing tube. He remains on a ventilator.
(Excerpt) Read more at kten.com ...
But still a living human being, right?
If he was honest, it would say "execution by dehydration." I assume you don't have a problem with that?
Exactly. And if she had died when they turned off her ventilator years ago, what would have been listed as her cause of death?
"Interesting discussion" ping.
All she needed was a little gravity feeding tube. No electricity involved. Of course, you know she was not allowed to try any oral feeding as well? In Terri's case, there was no venilator, only a pillow over her face in your scenario.
I'm trying to make the case that from an ethical standpoint there is a very tangible difference between turning off a person's ventilator and removing their feeding tube.
You could of fooled me. Is there a possibility that you could make yourself more clear?
It's also worth noting that I don't consider a feeding tube a form of medical treatment, so this comment of mine . . .
. . . a person who operates with full brain function as a result of a medical treatment should be treated the same way as a person who operates with little or no brain function in spite of a medical treatment . . .
. . . applies specifically to a ventilator (or any other means of potentially extraordinary medical care), not a feeding tube.
Post #23 noted. I was trying to remember, weren't you a Terri supporter?
"It's not. There is a ventilator involved here, not just a feeding tube."
Christopher Reeve also had a ventilator. Stephen Hawkings has a ventilator.
What the Church teaches is that if death is imminent - then extraordinary means need not be used to extend life.
There is not enough information in the story to tell us if this boy is terminal or not.
If the mother is right, and he did respond to her, it is possible he could recover - but how will anyone know if the ventilator is pulled too soon?
There's an awful lot of people who want to pull these ventilators because they're thinking of the monetary cost.
It is possible that in the rush to say "it is hopeless" some patients may be denied the one thing that could have saved them....precious time.
Yes, I was.
But neither of these men had extensive brain damage.
What the Church teaches is that if death is imminent - then extraordinary means need not be used to extend life.
Death does not have to be imminent. The Church teaches that extraordinary means do not have to be used to maintain human life.
Whose judgment should be trusted here? The mother, who lost custody of this child through neglect, or the doctors who have been treating this child for nearly two months?
"Death does not have to be imminent. The Church teaches that extraordinary means do not have to be used to maintain human life."
So...it would have been alright for Reeve to disconnect his ventilator? And would it be allright for Hawkings too?
"But neither of these men had extensive brain damage. "
I don't see in this article where they gave much detail about how much brain damage there was.
"Whose judgment should be trusted here? The mother, who lost custody of this child through neglect, or the doctors who have been treating this child for nearly two months?"
I don't see in this article where she lost custody due to neglect.
Unfortunately, doctors have been wrong before -especially when it comes to the brain.
If she is right about his resonsiveness - it doesn't matter what kind of a mother she is.
"Receiving palliative care would do the child no good. He is brain damaged."
HUGE difference between being brain DAMAGED and brain DEAD, and even brain DEAD is subjective.
"From a medical/ethical standpoint, the difference between removing a feeding tube and shutting off a ventilator is enormous. A person who cannot breathe on his own effectively dies of natural causes, while someone who relies on assistance for feeding/hydration does not. When a hospital removes a feeding tube, they've basically decided to kill the patient as opposed to letting the patient die."
true...but I still struggle with this notion that ventilator automatically = extraordinary means.
In other words...not everyone on a ventilator is doomed to die. Ventilators are often used to aide in a person's recovery - or to buy them some time when diagnosing the problem proves to be difficult.
I think applying a blanket rule that patients on ventilators are fair game would eliminate many people from their possible recovery.
"HUGE difference between being brain DAMAGED and brain DEAD, and even brain DEAD is subjective."
exactly right.
I don't know where people get the idea that brain damage means a person is fair game to be euthenized.
This is part of a post by Pepper 777. Very, very insightful.
"Sun, you are so correct about the Brain dead diagnosis. My sister-in-law was on a repirator for several months, due to a motor cycle accident. The doctors used the *brain dead* words about her. The Doctors were totally WRONG.
She recovered significantly. I swear she was much worse off than Terri, but had years of treatment. Her brain even swelled up and they had to put a drainage tube right in the top of her skull. She was in a coma for so long and etc. Couldn't talk or eat and on and on, just like Terri. That's why I always was so sure Terri could have recovered so much if she only had treatment and therapy."
Steven Hawking: I have had motor neurone disease for practically all my adult life.
International Alliance of ALS/MND Associations on the internet (linked from Hawking's web site): ALS/MND is characterised by progressive degeneration of the motor cells in the brain and spinal cord.
Is there a particular form of brain damage that you feel qualifies a person for extermination? Is your criteria based on the person's intelligence or perceived intelligence?
Another quote from Hawking: One's voice is very important. If you have a slurred voice, people are likely to treat you as mentally deficient: Does he take sugar?
And those are the grounds upon which you advocate killing people.
We went through this with my daughter.
Brain death is much easier to diagnose than pvs.
It is non subjective - either the patient meets the criteria - or she doesn't.
I am referring to reflexes, blood pressure regulation, urine output, pupil reaction to light, EEG and other braim imaging tests.
In our state it requires the consensus of 3 doctors to declare death before the ventilator can be removed.
This is a much different situation then when a patient retains some (even minimal) brain function.
No one knows for sure if the patient's brain could be healing - or if the patient is at death's door.
These people need time to help figure it out, but there are bean counters out there counting the cost of the bed/day.
The problem with a diagnosis of brain death, is that some doctors declare brain death while there is still some brain activity.
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.