Posted on 02/18/2005 3:36:08 PM PST by FreeMarket1
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.
Right or wrong, I would be doing the same as her. And she needs support. There is no logical thinking when it comes to wanting to save your baby.
Now return to the mother, and ask yourself whether it might be just a wee bit selfish for her to insist that this child remain suffering due to the artificial intervention of the hospital.
If you're still not convinced, ask yourself what you would do if that baby were perfectly healthy, but the mother was causing him an equivalent amount of pain through physical abuse.
Just wondering why doctors can't remove his ribs and replace them with artificial ones that can be enlarged or replaced as he grows?
Do you know that? Or are you going by the article?
Because I've seen a lot of misreporting of the information in Terri's case.
*If* you know that....ok. But it is VERY hard to separate the emotion from the logic. The mother only knows, I want my baby. And she is post pardum.
You can't expect her to think logically. She is hormonal and instinctive right now.
Is saving a baby's life not ethical?
As would many of us if faced with the same situation. Agreed.
And she needs support.
Yes, what she needs is grief counseling. Her child is dying and she needs to let go.
There is no logical thinking when it comes to wanting to save your baby.
Indeed and that's why in rare cases such as this it is ethical for the doctors to go against the wishes of the parent.
(All I have said here is predicated on the facts as I understand them; if I am wrong I may have to change my mind.)
In that case, maybe we should get rid of pacemakers, heart surgeons and organ transplants...
And exactly how do you know that?
That is not what is happening here. The baby's life cannot be saved; it can only be sustained through artificial means.
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.
Your thought process is really scary.
Experience. I'm a registered nurse, and I've seen it beofre. Read up on the condition please.
Fair point, except you can recover from such operations to the point that you are automomous and relatively pain free. In this case, not only is the life support causing the child significant pain, but as I read the description of the condition, even standard life support will fail eventually.
If this mother were causing an otherwise healthy child this much pain, on a continuous, ongoing basis without any sign of relief, we'd lock her up.
So you know there is nothing that can be done?
What about breaking the ribs and resetting them?
Just wondering why doctors can't remove his ribs and replace them with artificial ones that can be enlarged or replaced as he grows?
That's only half the battle. The LUNGS are the other half. What about leaving it in God's capable hands?
I asked earlier about replacing the ribs with artificial ones but hadn't heard if that is possible.
The author sure seems to see TAX dollars as being a bottomless pit.
And people wonder why hospital care is expensive. The money does have to be made up, either through higher costs or higher taxes.
If the disease is skeletal then the lungs should grow normally once the rib cage were enlarged, right?
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.