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.."
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
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?
The first thing I thought of when I saw that headline was "abortion"....
First Florida and Terri,
Now Texas and a baby.
I wonder if there are any type of connections in the hierarchy or affiliates.
I wonder if this is about money. Think I read in another thread that the hospital had been covering the costs. If so, then maybe that is the reason pulling the plug has come up. If the parents or insurance were to cover the expenses then maybe the hospital would continue with the care. The hospital may feel that their funds could go to help others that could really benefit instead of just prolonging the inevitable. Just wondering if expenses are the real issue here.
Sorry, Free, but there's more to the story. First, the parent does have legal right to see the medical record. Second, the hospital does not have any right to pull the plug without the family's consent. Third, where's the child's attorney ad litem? Fourth, why wasn't CPS called back in November? Fifth, I'm assuming this case would be in a large city for the hospital to be so equipped, hence the mother's attorney should have requested the case be heard in children's court by a judge with experience with minors and if it wasn't then could request it be transfered with minimal effort. Nope, there's much more to this story than what's being reported.
A lot of people here are saying that they don't mind this article much because the baby would eventually die anyway. This surprises me.
What makes this article so wrong, imo, is that they are doing this against the mother's conset. She doesn't want her son to die, and I understand that. When you have a loved one that's dying, don't you want every last moment that you can have with them? What if the hospital came and told you, "Hey, we're cutting off life support to your son/daughter/mother/father/relative. Oh, you want him/her to live? C'mon, he/she has a terminal illness; it's not like he/she is gonna be around much longer anyhow. We have a court order and there is nothing you can do to fight it"? How would you feel?
The real heart of this article is the court coming in and deciding if innocent people have the right to live to die, despite the family's wishes. That is playing God; that is dangerous territory. When a kid goes somewhere he's not supposed to, he gets punished. America might get a spanking real soon.
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.Doctors claim the child is in pain and that it is unethical to prolong his life.
The infant has been on life support since his birth in September.
Texas Children's Hospital is paying Hudson's attorney fees and asked that the case go to court in order to reach a fair resolution.
The hospital is paying the attorney fees.
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.
What a BS title.
ProLife Ping!
If anyone wants on or off my ProLife Ping List, please notify me here or by freepmail.