FMNN: CRIPPLED CHILD SENTENCED TO DEATH WITHOUT TRIAL

https://www.freemarketnews.com ^ | Feb 18, 2005 | by Craig McCarthy

[cardinal4]

Hmmm. Im thinking there is more to this story. Im fairly certain that a hospital doesnt have the power to arbitrarily to "pull the plug.."

[Servant of the 9]

“Infants with this condition are usually stillborn or die shortly after birth from respiratory failure; however, some children have survived into childhood with a lot of medical help.”

In other words, the kid has been sentenced to death by God and the State has simply decided not to fight God's decision on the matter since they will inevitably lose.

So9

[writer33]

In other words, the kid has been sentenced to death by God and the State has simply decided not to fight God's decision on the matter since they will inevitably lose.

Yes, but doesn't the State have the ultimate authority over God?

Oh, wait a minute...nevermind. :)

Denote heavy sarcasm.

[Spiff]

In other words, the kid has been sentenced to death by God and the State has simply decided not to fight God's decision on the matter since they will inevitably lose.

One of my children had the umbilical cord wrapped tightly around his neck when he was born. Did God sentence him to die and was it wrong for the hospital to "keep him alive" by removing the cord from his neck?

Where do you draw the line?

[Free and Armed]

If this is all there is to the story, then the hospital should be treating the child if the parents want to. It didn't say all kids with this problem are doomed to death. Who in the hell in the hospital has the right to say this kid should be left to die against his parents' wishes?

[mcg1969]

Agreed. I know we're sensitized to this now thanks to the Terry Schiavo case but it seems to me that delaying God's will through incredible artificial means is bound to cause tragic suffering sometimes.

I was also about to make some comment like, "this is what you get when you let someone else pay for your health care." But the story seems to suggest that money has nothing to do with it.

[highlandbreeze]

At some point, someone will have to "pull the plug" because the baby will not be coming off it.

[mcg1969]

Oh please. Are you truly unable to differentiate between unwrapping the umbilical cord and the continued application of an artificial breathing apparatus?

Just in case you can't, here's an important distinction: the removal of the cord is an act that is finite in duration with permanent positive consequences. In contrast, the child mentioned here will die without the continued, permanent application of artificial life support.

[.38sw]

I think that there is a little more to this story. There was a thread here a day or day about it. IIRC, the child's disease doesn't allow for the lungs and ribcage to grow, so as the rest of the body grows, the lung capacity doesn't keep up with the need for oxygen. It seems that the child will slowly suffocate, even with a ventilator. I'll have to go look it up for sure. I can't rely on my memory here.

[mcg1969]

Who in the hell in the hospital has the right to say this kid should be left to die against his parents' wishes?

Well, likewise, who in the hell has the right to tell a hospital what it must and must not do? Must a doctor perform a medical treatment he is not ethically comfortable with?

[cardinal4]

At some point, someone will have to "pull the plug" because the baby will not be coming off it.

Perhaps. But that is not my point. I dont think a hospital can just pull the plug the way it is described in this article. Which is why Im inclined to believe there is more to the story..

[Freedom2specul8]

The first thing I thought of when I saw that headline was "abortion"....

[highlandbreeze]

How long should a baby have to suffer life support? Sometimes family members cannot let go, they cling to hope, sometimes false hope.

Indeed, where do you draw the line?

[mcg1969]

Agreed. To me, this article attempts to engender a lot of sympathy but it, in fact, shoots itself in the foot when it makes it clear that money is not the issue. That leads me to believe that the doctors are making a medical decision here, not a financial one. But of course, with more of the story, I might feel otherwise.

[highlandbreeze]

I believe you are correct.

[.38sw]

Found the thread: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1345350/posts?page=25

From the article:

"Texas Children's Hospital officials said Sun was born with a fatal genetic defect known as skeletal dysplasia that will not allow his chest cavity and lungs to grow. Sun is slowly suffocating to death because his lungs lack the capacity to support his body, according to hospital officials."

[Calpernia]

First Florida and Terri,

Now Texas and a baby.

I wonder if there are any type of connections in the hierarchy or affiliates.

[highlandbreeze]

Not everything is abortion, and this poor baby is not merely crippled.

[mcg1969]

More news articles:

http://news.newkerala.com/india-news/?action=fullnews&id=73614
Key quote: "The hospital claims continued treatment is inhumane, but the infant's mother, Wanda Hudson, disputes the doctors' diagnosis."

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/17/national/17brfs.html
Key quote: "Under state law, a hospital must continue care if there is a reasonable probability that another hospital will admit the patient. Ms. Hudson's lawyer, Mario Caballero, argued there was a reasonable chance that another hospital would take Sun, but hospital lawyers said that state officials had contacted almost 40 hospitals and found none willing to care for him."