Father fights mother over baby's life

[Jahungo]

A baby born with a severe birth defect put its parents on opposing sides in a British court over whether to switch off the child's life support.

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/1...ort/index.html

It does depend on the specifics of the disease somewhat, and I admit I know little about it, but it seems like since the baby cannot make the decision on its own, and it is indeed alive and able to survive, then it should remain on life support (unless it is in the end stages of its life and death is truly imminent. But the article never mentions this).

ETA: Oh, and cue outraged cries from the American right about "death panels" and "this is what happens when government controls healthcare!"

[AnglRdr]

Originally Posted by Jahungo

ETA: Oh, and cue outraged cries from the American right about "death panels" and "this is what happens when government controls healthcare!"

Even with the government not controlling health care here, this is pretty much what happened in the Terry Schaivo case, with her parents on one side and her spouse and legal next-of-kin on the other.

I wonder if he's got any other impairments.

Also, it doesn't really say how long he's been on the vent. My first impression is that he's been on it his whole life, but I would've thought they would've done a trach a way long time ago.

It must be really hard on both parents, though.

[Chloe]

How dreadful. What on earth is the father hoping to achieve?

[Mama Duck]

Originally Posted by Chloe

How dreadful. What on earth is the father hoping to achieve?

More time with his child. I can imagine how easy it would be to delude yourself about the true state of your baby in order to gain more time.

[Chloe]

Originally Posted by Mama Duck

More time with his child. I can imagine how easy it would be to delude yourself about the true state of your baby in order to gain more time.

I have sympathy with that, but if the poor child is paying a price for it, no. People with a sick and suffering animal also often delude themselves in order not to make the right decision, but it is the animal that pays the price. (And before anyone squeaks, I know a baby is not a pet; that was an analogy.)

[Jahungo]

I have a hard time thinking it is ethical to allow a baby (which probably has normal brain function, even though it's body is very sick) to die when it can be kept alive. This isn't a case of a brain dead patient like Terry Schiavo, but instead a situation where the brain is fully alive and functional (for a one year old), but the body is severely crippled.

I'm definitely of patients having the right to choose to go off life support, but this baby cannot do that on its own. I have serious concerns about us making that decision for him.

It's a very difficult issue, though, and it does sound like the baby is in a seriously unpleasant situation.

[Chloe]

Originally Posted by Jahungo

I have a hard time thinking it is ethical to allow a baby (which probably has normal brain function, even though it's body is very sick) to die when it can be kept alive.

I have a hard time thinking it is ethical to allow a baby (which probably has normal brain function, even though its body is very sick) to suffer horribly when it will die soon.

[Lainie]

Originally Posted by Jahungo

I have a hard time thinking it is ethical to allow a baby (which probably has normal brain function, even though it's body is very sick) to die when it can be kept alive. This isn't a case of a brain dead patient like Terry Schiavo, but instead a situation where the brain is fully alive and functional (for a one year old), but the body is severely crippled.

And causing its owner extensive pain and suffering.

[Mama Duck]

Originally Posted by Jahungo

I have a hard time thinking it is ethical to allow a baby (which probably has normal brain function, even though it's body is very sick) to die when it can be kept alive. This isn't a case of a brain dead patient like Terry Schiavo, but instead a situation where the brain is fully alive and functional (for a one year old), but the body is severely crippled.

Admittedly, there are few details. But it sounds as though the baby is dying. I would agree with you if the baby were mentally alert but crippled and simply likely to remain so. From what detail we do have, it sounds as though the baby is going to die, and rather soon. It's beyond tragic. And I can't say that I fault either side for doing what they think is right.

Originally Posted by Chloe

I have sympathy with that, but if the poor child is paying a price for it, no.

I understand that. But people are capable of incredible levels of delusion.

[Lainie]

Originally Posted by Jahungo

I'm definitely of patients having the right to choose to go off life support, but this baby cannot do that on its own. I have serious concerns about us making that decision for him.

The baby also cannot consent to the treatment he is receiving. How do you feel about making that decision for him?

[AnglRdr]

Originally Posted by Jahungo

I have a hard time thinking it is ethical to allow a baby (which probably has normal brain function, even though it's body is very sick) to die when it can be kept alive. This isn't a case of a brain dead patient like Terry Schiavo, but instead a situation where the brain is fully alive and functional (for a one year old), but the body is severely crippled.

I don't think the article really supports either that position (which is the father's), or the mother's. It didn't talk about anything other than the baby's breathing problems. Co-morbities with genetic defects are not uncommon.

I'm definitely of patients having the right to choose to go off life support, but this baby cannot do that on its own. I have serious concerns about us making that decision for him.

Who else should do it, though? Do you agree that his parents do have that right? And if his parents don't agree, then what?

[Jahungo]

Originally Posted by Chloe

I have a hard time thinking it is ethical to allow a baby (which probably has normal brain function, even though its body is very sick) to suffer horribly when it will die soon.

That's the thing...I can't find any information on the child's chances of survival in any articles. I agree that the child's realistic life expectancy (even optimistic life expectancy) play a role, but I can't find any information about that (from this and other articles). I get the impression that the child might live for quite some time, actually, but that's not actually based on any real facts from the articles.

[Jahungo]

Originally Posted by Lainie

The baby also cannot consent to the treatment he is receiving. How do you feel about making that decision for him?

Originally Posted by AnglRdr

Who else should do it, though? Do you agree that his parents do have that right? And if his parents don't agree, then what?

I don't know...I just sort of feel like saving the person should be the default, and they should have to consent to being taken of life support. This is distinctly different than the case of a brain dead patient, IMO, since in that case the patient is not truly alive. Here there is no disputing that this baby is alive, but at the same time it is undergoing serious suffering.

I'm not saying I'm definitely against it, but I have strong reservations and frankly I'm not really sure how I feel. It's a really tough issue, and to me there's no clear answer.

[Chloe]

Originally Posted by Jahungo

That's the thing...I can't find any information on the child's chances of survival in any articles. I agree that the child's realistic life expectancy (even optimistic life expectancy) play a role, but I can't find any information about that (from this and other articles). I get the impression that the child might live for quite some time, actually, but that's not actually based on any real facts from the articles.

I find it unlikely that a disease, even a progressive one, that is non-fatal, would lead to the removal of life support.

[AnglRdr]

It's definitely a really horrible situation, and I don't know how I feel about this. I think they should be doing a trach trial, myself, before there's any talk about withdrawing life support. But I also do want to know more about what is going on with the baby, especially what other impairments he has and how long he's been on the vent.

[Chloe]

Originally Posted by Jahungo

I don't know...I just sort of feel like saving the person should be the default, and they should have to consent to being taken of life support.

Why? There are worse things than being dead, and if this child's condition is as the hospital is indicating, such suffering with no hope of release would be one of those things.

[Jahungo]

Originally Posted by Chloe

I find it unlikely that a disease, even a progressive one, that is non-fatal, would lead to the removal of life support.

This quote from this article seems to indicate that he could survive quite a long time in this state.

“But the Trust is concerned that his awareness will simply make his own plight all the more unbearable - not so much now, but as he gets older and catches glimpses of what others can do.”

[Hans Off]

Originally Posted by Jahungo

I don't know...I just sort of feel like saving the person should be the default,

Indeed, which is what they are both arguing.

Saved from death, or saved from "a miserable, sad and pitiful existence"

Tough choice but removed from it, I am certain of what I would choose.

However it is impossible to put yourself in the shoes of these parents and expect to be able to come to a rational, selfless and truly compassionate conclusion.