Texas Hospital Will Kill Child Despite Parent's Wishes

yeah, i hear bush is going to show up and step on the kids head to make sure the jobs done right.

 

It comes across as caustic and unfeeling, but the family (like anyone would) is unable to let go and face reality. He is already dead, there is no chance of recovery, but they are unable to cope with this. It is purely selfish on their part.

Again, the kid is already dead.

Yes, I realize how cold this post is.

Evan

 

its a sad story, but unfortunately a line has to be drawn at some point when we talk about patients who are terminally ill and especially ones that apparently have zero chance of surviving. Its a long ethical debate and of course people will never agree.

But at some point the plug has to be pulled, literally. Sad, but thats part of life...and death.

well it is difficult to rely on someones judgment who is obviously biased and clouded due to emotion, not to mention hardly expects in this field.

but how long do you continue to keep the baby alive while its supported by machines? 6 month...1 year...16th b-day?

 

i am confused....what do you want? them to give the baby drugs to minimize suffering after the life support is pulled? if that's all you want then i agree with you. it is dumb for them not to be able to give the baby anything to minimize pain.

 

i like how you just treat it as if the hospital and government is killing the child. the child would be dead without the ARTIFICAL life they are giving it. the child will not survive and has no prospects of recovery. it is times like this when the mechanical nature of our bodies.


maybe you should have paid attention to the part you didn't bold...

does it sound at all selfish on the family's part to keep a child alive like this?

 

its not cold. its a pretty objective view of whats happening

 

One reason this law may have been put into effect is that they increase substantially the cost of healthcare for all, as i'm sure if the child has been
in this state since December, the bills are astronomical and will not be paid.

If someone wants to leave a child/relative in a vegetable state for years and years, it burdens to tax payers significantly and there must be a cutoff point or these extreme cases will make healthcare unaffordable to most.

 

letting the baby die in a couple of minutes is reducing the suffering of being kept alive artificially for years on end.

 

Honestly, it appears to me that the child's family are in fact the selfish ones here. They want to keep the kid alive because they don't to suffer the loss of a child, at the expense of the child's suffering. Essentially they're making the kid pay the price for their own happiness.

 

Because euthanasia and assisted suicide is illegal. They would all lose their medical licenses if they "helped" the child die.

Evan

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070410/ap_on_re_us/futile_care;_ylt=Art98ZIMJ3axzqxH8AUlYS2s0NUE

Judge orders baby kept on life-support 1 hour, 5 minutes ago



AUSTIN, Texas - A judge Tuesday granted a family's request to keep their critically ill baby alive, ruling that the boy should not be removed from life-support equipment as the hospital had planned.

Probate Judge Guy Herman set a hearing for April 19 for both sides to present evidence in the case of 17-month-old Emilio Gonzales.

Children's Hospital of Austin has been caring for Emilio since December and says the effort is futile and the child is suffering without medical benefit. It invoked a state law that allows hospitals to end life-sustaining treatment in such cases with 10 days notice to the family.

Emilio's mother, Catarina Gonzales, 23, doesn't believe her only son is nonresponsive and says the boy smiles and turns his head toward voices.

"I feel very relieved because we have more time," Jerri Ward, an attorney for the Gonzales family, said after the ruling.

Emilio has health coverage through Medicaid, and the hospital contends money is not part of its decision.

Doctors and a hospital ethics panel determined the treatment is causing the boy to suffer without providing any medical benefit, said Michael Regier, general counsel for the Seton Family of Hospitals, which includes the children's hospital.

The boy is believed to have Leigh's Disease, a progressive illness difficult to diagnose. He cannot breathe on his own, must have nutrition and water pumped into him, and can't swallow or make purposeful movements, Regier said. He said Emilio's higher order brain functions are destroyed.

The boy's family has had difficulty finding another medical facility that will care for the boy, though Gonzales said Tuesday they had several promising leads.

The Legislature, meanwhile, is considering changing the futile care law.

 

not surprising.

 

I find it difficult to apply the word "suffering" in any meaningful way if the child has no higher brain function.

 

^
good point.

 

Depending though on what functions were still present the child could still feel pain.

That seems like the case to me. Detaching the child from life support isn't actively killing him. Yes he will die but its indirect since nature would be taking its course. What seems a little strange to me though is that they can't give him drugs to ease his pain. I don't know Texas law but my understanding is that many states allow for providing for pain relief in terminal cases.

Its a really tragic situation and its understandable the parents are having a hard time letting go.

 

And what is that suposed to mean?