FMNN: CRIPPLED CHILD SENTENCED TO DEATH WITHOUT TRIAL

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

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Interesting, you tackle every point that I make except the one about the automobile accident. So, if you feel pain (which is very subjective) is a sufficient factor, then I guess you feel that we should let those who suffer major automobile accidents die if they would otherwise live with pain.

As for your argument that this disease is terminal, so is life.

My main problem here is the court-ordered doctor-assisted euthanasia. For that is exactly what it is, color it how you will.

[Spiff]

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

I know the difference, I just asked where the line is drawn.

[mcg1969]

Sorry I missed the automobile argument, I am responding to too many people. But the removal of artificial life support is not euthanasia. And actually it's interesting to hear a conservative suggest otherwise. Let me ask you, are doctors required to provide any type of medical care a person asks, as long as it is paid for, even if the doctors themselves believe that treatment to be unethical?

[Calpernia]

>>>> My main problem here is the court-ordered doctor-assisted euthanasia.

This is an interesting point.

Will this be used as a precedent?

[mcg1969]

Fair enough, Spiff. I'd say it's somewhere between your case and this child's case :) I know that's not helpful. But I will say it's a long, long way from your end of the spectrum.

[Calpernia]

>>>>I am responding to too many people.

And you have done a fine job doing that too.

Thank you for your insight on this thread.

[unbalanced but fair]

I truly believe it would be much more difficult with a child involved. At least we could console ourselves that my mother had made such a request and that she had lived a long life. You have my heart felt sympathy. I always pray and ask God to not take my son before me. And now there is my grandson to consider too.

[4mycountry]

This article rubs me the wrong way, plain and simple. It worries me to no end; I'm afraid that things like this will have a snowball affect.

No hearings from the mother's side. Just a court order.

Oh well, guess I'm just a stubborn girl who thinks people should have a fair say. Silly me.

[Spiff]

Your Child was fixed once the cord was untangled. If it had required someone to hold the uncut cord away from his neck 24/7 for as long as he was to live, that would have been unreasonable. Nothing could keep this condition from killing this child. All that could have been done was to pour vast ammounts of public money into staving off death for a few years and that is unreasonable.

So, you apparently draw the line when the person can't be "fixed" and if keeping the "unfixed" person alive will cost the "public" a lot of money. There sure are a lot of "unfixed" people walking around right now that you would have sentenced to death.

I'm not saying that in this particular case the parent is necessarily right or wrong - I'm just saying that one has to be EXTREMELY careful where the draw the line on this kind of thing.

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

In that case, the withholding of treatment to any medically ill person (even the automobile accident victim) is not euthanasia either.

To answer you question, though, no MD is required to do what they think is unethical. However, that question is a strawman, since the entire issue is not about ethics.

It is not surprising, as a conservative, that I take this position. Because naturally, I'm biased toward life. But I'm extremely irritated against the courts playing God.

What happens to the entire argument if, two years from now, a cure is found?

[unbalanced but fair]

We were there when they took my mother off the respirator. But she seemed to have already left us. She was in a coma and showed no brain activity, unlike Terri Schiavo.

[brooklin]

You are so right.

[Servant of the 9]

My main problem here is the court-ordered doctor-assisted euthanasia. For that is exactly what it is, color it how you will.

You seem to be using some language other than English.

Taking someone off life support is never Euthenasia.
Euthenasia involves killing someone who is surviving on their own.

So9

[Spiff]

Consider Spiff's example above, whose child had its umbilical cord wrapped around its neck. Of course it is ethical in that case to fix the problem---a simple procedure provides permanent and lasting relief. Not so here. Not only is this child going to die without significant artificial life support, but that life support is causing significant physical suffering.

How do you define a "simple procedure"? Would you doom those children who's lifesaving procedures were not "simple" nor have a 100% guarantee of providing permanent and lasting relief?

How do you define "significant artifical life support?" Would artificial feeding methods fall under that category? How do you know that the child is having significant physical suffering? Should we kill everyone who is having "significant physical suffering" who can't be permanently relieved of that suffering? Where do we draw the line?

[Servant of the 9]

So, you apparently draw the line when the person can't be "fixed" and if keeping the "unfixed" person alive will cost the "public" a lot of money. There sure are a lot of "unfixed" people walking around right now that you would have sentenced to death.

I'm not saying that in this particular case the parent is necessarily right or wrong - I'm just saying that one has to be EXTREMELY careful where the draw the line on this kind of thing.

I draw the line at who has cash or insurance. Those who can pay are entitled to anything they can find a doctor willing to do.

I don't think charity cases, and that is what all others are, is entitled to anything.
They recieve what the patron, in this case all of us through goverment coercion, is willing to give. And they should damned well be grateful for it.

So9

[mlc9852]

What is the purpose of life support equipment? I've never really understood.

[mlc9852]

People on Medicare/Medicaid get damn good care also and who pays for that?

[processing please hold]

I have to leave this thread, it hurts too much to follow it. God bless this poor child. When God is ready for his angel to come to him, he will call him home. God bless the parents.

[mcg1969]

To answer you question, though, no MD is required to do what they think is unethical. However, that question is a strawman, since the entire issue is not about ethics.

What are you talking about? By the admission of this biased article, it's not about money. This child is being covered under state medical insurance which is not being cut off. And the hospital is even paying the woman's attorney's fees. So what else is it about?

Because naturally, I'm biased toward life. But I'm extremely irritated against the courts playing God.

You know, talk about straw men. If you're going to invoke the "playing God" argument, then we have to sit here and debate what medical treatments are "playing God" and which are not. But more importantly, it is not the courts playing God here at all. The hospital's medical staff, the ones with the expertise, made the decision. The court is simply respecting their expertise.

What happens to the entire argument if, two years from now, a cure is found?

Nothing whatsoever. This disorder then changes from a terminal one to a non-terminal one that should be treated. We have to work from the current state of the art in medical knowledge.

[unbalanced but fair]

"if, two years from now a cure is found?" Treatment and care have now saved the lives of people who have the same illness as my mother. Should we have kept her on life support for 19 years in the hope of a cure?