English Baby Judgement

ShiverinEskimo

What you all tink about the poor little one in england who is to be allowed to die peacefully if/when she stops breathing again?

Rough decision to make...

Whats your view?

Naos

care to shine a little light on the topic..

flogen

It is indeed a tough decision to make, but i feel the right one has been made.

It must be an awful time for the parents, given that they had to give the go ahead to letting their child die (which they didnt), but in reality the poor soul really wouldnt have any quality of life. She's been resuscitated so many times, her body is far from functional, and she would have to remain on a machine for her natural life, which probably wouldnt be very long anyway.

It may sound strange, but it's better to let go and allow her to die in peace and be free from any pain, rather than hold onto her just because you cant let go. It would be a terrible choice to have on you, and I hope I and everyone else here would never have to make such a tough one but it really is whats best for the child.

flogen

ShiverinEskimo

Mear wrote:

care to shine a little light on the topic..

My apologies - all over the news in england.

A little girl born 3 months premature - (blind, deaf, liver, lung and heart problems).

The doctors treating her said they no longer wished to resuscitate her if she stopped breathing again (it has happen quite a few times before). She is in constant pain and by all medical reasoning has no chance of surviving for more than a year if that.
The parents went to court to have it decided whether the doctors should be forced to resuscitate her as the parents (understandably) do not want her to die.
The judgement was passed that she should not be resuscitated if her breathing stops again. ie she shall die in dignity and her suffering will come to an end.

see: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3723656.stm
for full details.

JackKelly

i just voted do not resuscitate but after reading down im confused. The parents want to keep resuscitating the baby?and the doctors dont?In that case i think it should be up to the parents. If i was in their shoes i would let the child pass away peacfully

mike65

TimAy wrote:

i just voted do not resuscitate but after reading down im confused. The parents want to keep resuscitating the baby?and the doctors dont?In that case i think it should be up to the parents. If i was in their shoes i would let the child pass away peacfully

Your're right you are confused. The doctors want to let nature take its course and not intervene if the child should falter, the parents want to keep reviving the poor tyke like Frankenstiens Monster.

Mike.

RuggieBear

TimAy wrote:

i just voted do not resuscitate but after reading down im confused. The parents want to keep resuscitating the baby?and the doctors dont?In that case i think it should be up to the parents. If i was in their shoes i would let the child pass away peacfully

That's the dilema alright...they claim the baby is a fighter and knows when they are present...

It's a god awful decsion to make....i'd like to think i'd let my baby pass away if it ever happened to me but its your own flesh and blood and you so want to believe that she'll pull through.... Absolutely heart breaking.

ionapaul

I feel awful for the poor parents, but definitely think the right decision was made in the courts - we must assume the doctors are both telling the entire truth and have the baby's interests at heart - if it is living in pain and resusitation will cause even more pain, it seems the right thing to do to let her slip away....
Awful situation that is replicated all over the world every day I am sure

monument

Correction on my vote, would have voted no, but I miss read the question.

If I had the choice I say ‘it depends’, but if she doesn’t improve, and giving the amount of pain she is said to be in, the amount of times she’s been resuscitated, and the amount of time she has to live… it’s probably best to let nature to take its course. Although it’s an unbelievable hard decision to make even for the doctors .

meepmeep

well, the doctors said she wouldn't live past infancy, and she would never be able to leave the hospital. Poor little thing in constant pain and will never have any quality of life. I think letting her go when she stops breathing is the right decision. It seems to me the humane thing to do.

Heartbreaking for the parents yes, but it would be cruel to keep her alive when she has no chance at all.

MiniMcGee

I think the judge made the right decision. The doctors say the baby will not live past being an infant so i think keeping her alive is just prolonging the pain and suffering for both the baby and the family. It will cause uproar now if some miracle does happen and she proves them all wrong but the doctors are certain there is no chance of that happening.

However its worry that it had to go to the courts as a decision like this might mean more cases of this nature coming up. I dont think a person's life should generally be decided by the courts.

meepmeep

The thing about this is, the parents said that God would decide what happens to the baby, and that it was no one elses place to do so. But they are not killing her, they have just decided to not resuscitate her if she stops breathing.

Have they not really been playing God anyway by resuscitating her 3 times already? I mean, doctors do that every day, but i know that if that was my baby, then I can say I would be losing my faith in God for that happening to her in the first place. I wouldn't have that as my reason to keep her alive regardless.

embee

It was the right decision in the end.

Each baby in a neo-natal intensive care unit tends to have their own nurse assigned to them and they have round the clock support from doctors etc.
In reality, this baby has no chance of surviving past infancy, and the nurses and doctors who are caring for her could be put to better use helping a baby who has a chance of survival and getting better. She is blind, deaf, has damage to most of her vital organs, is in constant pain, is brain damaged and needs a constant supply of oxygen... I think its a bit cruel to keep the baby alive when she is in such pain, but I can see why it is an agonising decision for both parents and doctors to have to make.

penguinbloke

I can see where the parents are coming from in wanting to keep the baby alive, and the

the parents want to keep reviving the poor tyke like Frankenstiens Monster.

possibly wasn't in the height of good taste.

But, this way is probably for the best for all parties in the long run. The parents get closure can grieve and move on, eventually.

The hospital staff get to put their resources into helping those who have a better chance. And also wont have have to face each day knowing that this child is suffering beyond anything that we could imagine, and that it was all she has ever known.

littleninja

What an agonising decision... I voted not to resuscitate, at the end of the day the poor child is in agony and it's really not fair to keep her in such pain.

I think everyone can see what a difficult decision that would be for the parents though, they love this little girl dearly and want her to live, I would imagine that they know that she is in pain but are trying to will themselves into believing that she would be able to get over it etc.

This thread actually has me all choked up, that's a decision every parent would dread, doesn't matter who they are losing a child is something that is every parent's nightmare so to lose a little girl so early would be devastating.

sanncoo

I think the poor little mite should not be resuscitated again. Imagine the pain the poor little creature is in. If her tiny body wants to give up, then it is giving up for a reason.

The doctors are speaking from experience as someone metioned, it is happening all over the world. I am certain that if they could offer her any hope or some semblance of recovery they would fight to keep her alive. As it is she is just in pain and will have to be kept alive artificially if they continue to resuscitate her.

ixoy

I voted do not resucitate based on the doctor's medical opinions. I understand that the parents will hope/think that maybe their daughter can recognize them and want to keep fighting desperately against the overwhelming bleakness of turning the machines off but, for them and for the child, it may be the best choice from a range of horrific options.

Things like this temporarily put stuff into perspective don't they? I mean it kind of shows up when the worst decision you might have to make today is what set of clothes to wear...

stevenmu

It's a tough call but really the courts should have stayed out of it. The doctors themselves should have been left to decide. They're the ones who actually know what's going on and can look at it from an objective, expert point of view. You wouldn't let a judge remove your appendix !

If ressucitation isn't going to do any good then their time and resources should be devoted to something where they can be of benefit. As sad as the whole thing is there's always other people who need treatment.

penguinbloke

stevenmu wrote:

It's a tough call but really the courts should have stayed out of it. The doctors themselves should have been left to decide. They're the ones who actually know what's going on and can look at it from an objective, expert point of view. You wouldn't let a judge remove your appendix !

The Judge is there as a neutral party and was only there to come up with a decision because those involved cannot agree on a course of action. Allowing the judgement removes the blame from the doctors as they now have a legal basis to not revive the baby. Also, it removes some of the burden from the parents because while they must now come to terms with the facts, they can also prepare for the inevitable instead of dragging it out.

GoneShootin

Carry on resuscitating?

OOOO MATRON!

pickarooney

The parents need to stop being selfish - the child is not viable and the hospital resources, human and otherwise, could be better put to use saving the lives of people who are.

Call it callous, but while a parent can be expected to do everything in his/her might to sustain their child's life, the same is not true for the medical staff.

*Page*

Definitly DNR poor little thing....