Hospital Removes Baby's Life Support Against Will of Mother

Leo Wyatt · **Thu Mar 17, 2005 8:36 pm**

It is not the doctor's place to decide rather or not the baby should die. They didn't have the parents permission. Not right at all.

Ziona · **Thu Mar 17, 2005 8:53 pm**

I beg to differ on a few personal situations that I have gone through with my family. But, you are entitled to your own opinion. I just think that doctor's sometimes have a right to do what they feel is best. I would have to seriously see what was going on before I could make a complete decision however. Depends on what the parents were acting like and what they were doing... if they were being rash and irresponsible as well towards prolonging the life of their infant.

Leo Wyatt · **Thu Mar 17, 2005 8:56 pm**

No, they don't have that right unless the parents give them permission it is not moral of the doctors. Doctors here would be out jobs if they do something without the parents permission.

I hope those doctors get what they deserve. Get sued or loose their license to practice or something.

Republican_Man · **Thu Mar 17, 2005 8:59 pm**

Zeke Zabertini · Captain Joined: 13 Sep 2002 Posts: 4832

Well, euthanasia is a tough issue. It's all well and good to have a rule stating that "only Party X has the authority to make the decision," but you'll inevitably run into probelms. Then you get into the "except when"s. So only the person has the right to choose. What if they're unable to communicate? Then relatives. What if they don't reach a consensus? Then the state. Who's to say if they're right? The buck has to stop somewhere. This applies to the Terri Schiavo case too. Who gets the final word?

Theresa · **Thu Mar 17, 2005 9:29 pm**

The day someone creates something from nothing, as God did, then you can say they "played God", until then, everything new, in it's most basic form, isn't.

And then to go further, we'd all have to express our ideas on who/what/ or how we see God. So, it's really a moot point.

Jeremy · **Fri Mar 18, 2005 10:27 am**

Another thing that you have to consider though, is that here in Britain payment is made by the NHS, unless you have the money to go private. At the moment the NHS is underfunded by a lot of money. Is it ok to keep someone who will almost certainly not live, or if they do probably be disfigured, retarded or something like that, when the money could be used on people who are more likely to survive?

Theresa · **Fri Mar 18, 2005 1:24 pm**

So a "disfigured or retarded" person is a lesser being, and doesn't deserve the same human rights...
And most national healthcare plans become unerfunded because of abuse, by "healthy" people. Why not worry about them, first?

Seven of Nine · **Fri Mar 18, 2005 1:47 pm**

The NHS is underfunded because there are more managers than doctors, the government is making the NHS trusts give money to the private companies to do operations (which cost a lot less if done on the nhs), the privatisation of cleaning and housekeeping jobs (which is also increasing the rates of MRSA, because not enough cleaners are being employed) and because money which should have gone on the NHS is going on other projects, such as the Child Trust Fund. That's a waste of money if you ever saw one (how's �250-500 meant to help an 18 year old?)

Theresa · **Sun Mar 20, 2005 10:18 pm**

I just have a question. Been wondering about this.
At what level are we going to deem someone "unfit to live"? How severe the mental retardation? Is this going to be a case by case thing, or will a statute be set? I mean, is someone with Downs Syndrome to be "let go", or is that borderline, or what? Or are we going to stick with the "contribute to society"?

Seven of Nine · **Mon Mar 21, 2005 4:33 am**

My personal feeling is it should be done case-by-case. Normally in these situations there are a lot of things to be taken into account. I think the main consideration should be the persons likely quality of life. If they are going to have to spend the remainder of their lives on a ventilator, have no human interations at all, and there is no hope of rebilitation, then letting them go should be considered. However, that doesn't mean it's the right decision for every case.

And I know of plenty of people with Downs Syndrome who have made a contribution to society. I think one works in the local museum, another in the DIY store. Maybe they're not rocket scientists, but they're earning a wage and enjoying their jobs. Also, most of the kids I met with downs syndrome are the friendliest people I've come across (I used to go to school with a boy with Downs until the school refused to pay for his special needs teacher anymore... the *beep*).

Jeremy · **Mon Mar 21, 2005 7:34 am**

Theresa · **Mon Mar 21, 2005 12:18 pm**

I'm just trying to figure out at what point a person is considered undesirable to live. Where will the line be drawn?

Zeke Zabertini · Captain Joined: 13 Sep 2002 Posts: 4832

Who knows? Wherever law dictates. Same way a line is drawn with the death penalty, I guess. Except this wouldn't be a punishment for anything, just a preventative measure for society at large.

Theresa · **Mon Mar 21, 2005 2:12 pm**

That's an awful lot of responsibility to give the "law", don't you think? What's to stop them from then changing the criteria?

Zeke Zabertini · Captain Joined: 13 Sep 2002 Posts: 4832

Nothing. I'd assume though that, as long as we elect our government, it wouldn't be a major issue whether it got too strict. As in, good luck getting re-elected if you propose killing off every "flawed" baby.