13 replies to this topic

[Tetiel]

http://news.bbc.co.u...lth/4805822.stm

Please read that article before replying.

This is a 1 and a half year old child with a severe muscular condition whose parents do not want the baby off life support. Medics say he should be taken off, parents say he needs to live. This case is going to actual court to decide if the baby gets taken off or not.

The problem is does a court get to decide the fate of a minor in those cases? In the case of a minor unless they are abusing the child generally the parents have rights to the child and in these situations can choose to let it stay on life support, no?

One can remember and relate this to the case of Terri Schivo. However this is completely a different case because this is a baby not a full grown adult and someone actually related to the woman wanted her off as opposed to just medics. And also it is different because in Terri Schivo's case there was no question about her body working but it was her mind they said was brain dead. However in this case the mind is functional however the body is not working.

And if the court votes to take the baby off life support because they cannot work their body correctly and it is painful... where does it end? It is possibly somewhat if a fallacy perhaps I know but you have to wonder if it will possibly go further. Courts use other cases as precedent. If indeed the court and medics get to decide and not the family then will they go further and those who are suffering from for example qualdraplegia or a paralyzing stroke... do the courts get to decide those too? It is almost the same thing if they need to use respirators and feeding tubes to stay alive.

If the court system says yes to pull life support are they going too far?

[Vegas]

I don't think in these cases that courts have the right to play God, and also in many many other cases like with convicts. Though in a way people are playing God by letting someone live that would have naturally died if not for our human technological advancements. My dad has this theory which I think he heard on television that more and more people are being born with life-altering disabilities as nature is trying to even the balance as people who should have died due to their disabilities, are living due to medical treatement.

To your question....I'm not touching that with a 10 foot pole.

Edited by Scope, 14 March 2006 - 09:57 PM.

[Tetiel]

Though in a way people are playing God by letting someone live that would have naturally died if not for our human technological advancements.

But the thing is with your statement right there though... you could also say that with all medicine that helps people keep living Taking anti-biotics to save someone's life can be the same thing as using a life support system. Both would have died naturally otherwise However if looking at it from a Christian perspective... one could say that God could have enabled us to create these machines to help those who are dying, no?

[Vegas]

But the thing is with your statement right there though... you could also say that with all medicine that helps people keep living Taking anti-biotics to save someone's life can be the same thing as using a life support system. Both would have died naturally otherwise However if looking at it from a Christian perspective... one could say that God could have enabled us to create these machines to help those who are dying, no?

Human nature and religion don't go well together. They tend to contradict each other.

[Tetiel]

Human nature and religion don't go well together. They tend to contradict each other.

err... so are you saying that people shouldn't do things that could save their lives using modern science?

[Vegas]

No what im saying is stuff we do in life will be good for one rule of religion but offend another rule. Thats why it kinda contradicts and makes you wonder about religion.
And im all for technology. Go technology!!!!!
I mean seriously i've heard stuff that in maybe 100 years or so that humans might develop technology that could make us live more by slowing down the aging cells and replenishing them. I bet you that many people who say heaven is good and good to look forward to and to not be afraid of death will do that treatment.

Edited by Scope, 14 March 2006 - 10:10 PM.

[Frizzle]

Doctors side of view: Waste of time, staff and money keeping the little mite on the respirator.

Parent's view: Well they want their kid alive..

It's a lose-lose situation.

[Mystical]

I don't really know but i'd say that if they decide to pull the plug they really shouldn't recieve any negative media for it beause its suck a tragic case.

[Ives]

The hell?

Parents choice. its only inevitable that way. :X

[dck]

I think it will end up being the parents' choice in the end, although I think right now they're making the wrong one

[Funnlecake]

I think it should be in the hands of qulified doctors that will not let there personal beliefs get in the way. Becuase what good is a person going to be if there in a bed all the time hooked up to machines and in pain.

[Cataliste]

I am with Funnel on this one. There is no reason to allow a person to exist in a life of pain. Just because the parents want to hold on to some false sense of hope that some how their "God" will perform a miricle and the child will live, does not mean that money and medical staff should waste their time on a lost cause. I am Athiest so maybe that is why this is my opinion. This is similar to the Terry Chivo(sp?) case. Personally I believe in human euthinzation(sp?). To just let a person sit in a bed and die is cold and immoral. I am also pro-euthinization(sp?) of people diagnosed with HIV or AIDs, atleast until a cur eis created. If the person is gonna die, I believe time should be given for them to get their affairs in order, but letting a cancer patient die a cold, lonely death in an imaculate(sp?), emotionless hospital is wrong.

But that is my opinion, what do I know?