A child is on life support...

[lawtonfogle]

A child is on life support. Who gets to decide when to pull the plug? Are there limits to when the plug can be pulled (such as the doctors expect him to recover ability to live off of life support within a few months)? Should there be?




Yes, this idea came from an abortion thread (on a different forum), BUT I DO NOT want this to be another abortion thread. So please, don't switch topics. Thanks.

 

[Alunyel]

If there's a reasonable chance they could come off the life support and make a recovery, then I see no reason why they should pull the plug on them.

If nothing can be done, whatsoever, say, for example they've gone completely brain dead, and all the life support machine is doing, is keeping their organs moving, then I don't want to sound harsh, but the plug should be pulled. Life support machines, to leave them on, can quickly drain hospital's funds, meaning some who could need treatment would be unable to get it, because the machine's drained too much money from the hospital. I don't think the decision should be made lightly, though, I think it should go to to a committee of trained doctors who can hear the case from the perspective of all involved parties, before switching it off.

 

[Mystman]

Important point 1: What's the age of the child?
Important point 2: Is the child conscious or able to feel pain?

The older the child, the more his own wishes (made clear before or while he is on life support) should play a role. Naturally, if the child is able to make clear that he wants to keep living, the plug should not be pulled.

It becomes a problem when prior to the incident the child indicated that he does not want to die, but then starts getting serious pain and is unable to communicate his wishes.

If there is no hope of recovery (say... an essential part of his brain was destroyed by a bullet or something) and the child is unconcious, people should (gently) make the parents see that it is wiser to pull the plug. For the psychological health of the parents, it's better if they are making the decision. There's no rush, but keeping a semi-dead body on life support for >1 year is just a waste of doctor's time and societies money. It's also better for the parent's psychological health to "move on".

If there is SOME chance of recovery, the question becomes unanswerable. The best answer would be a calculation of the "expected value" of the happiness and money that killing/supporting the child would have, keeping into account the parent's/child's wishes, but that's very crude, inaccurate, and frankly, not really suited for life/death decisions.

If there is a good/full chance of recovery, the child should be kept on support, regardless of the wishes of the parents. (which raises the question: what exactly is the boundary between "some chance" and "a good chance": I have no idea. )

 

[taku60]

Important point 1: What's the age of the child?
Important point 2: Is the child conscious or able to feel pain?

The older the child, the more his own wishes (made clear before or while he is on life support) should play a role. Naturally, if the child is able to make clear that he wants to keep living, the plug should not be pulled.

It becomes a problem when prior to the incident the child indicated that he does not want to die, but then starts getting serious pain and is unable to communicate his wishes.

If there is no hope of recovery (say... an essential part of his brain was destroyed by a bullet or something) and the child is unconcious, people should (gently) make the parents see that it is wiser to pull the plug. For the psychological health of the parents, it's better if they are making the decision. There's no rush, but keeping a semi-dead body on life support for >1 year is just a waste of doctor's time and societies money. It's also better for the parent's psychological health to "move on".

If there is SOME chance of recovery, the question becomes unanswerable. The best answer would be a calculation of the "expected value" of the happiness and money that killing/supporting the child would have, keeping into account the parent's/child's wishes, but that's very crude, inaccurate, and frankly, not really suited for life/death decisions.

If there is a good/full chance of recovery, the child should be kept on support, regardless of the wishes of the parents. (which raises the question: what exactly is the boundary between "some chance" and "a good chance": I have no idea. )

The thing is its not societys money (that would be socialism and thats what most in the USA dont want, I dont want to pay for your indecision), the parents will be paying that debt off for the rest of thier life as I am guessing insurance companies are (and rightly so) picky about paying for stuff like this.

 

[sk8Joyful]

A child is on life support.

Who gets to decide when to pull the plug?
Are there limits, to when the plug can be pulled
(such as the doctors expect him to recover ability to live
off of life support within a few months)? Should there be?

I DO NOT want this to be another abortion thread.
So please, don't switch topics.
Thanks.

For the most part I have left CF, then again some threads tuck at me.

Having worked in medical-arenas for some 30 years, I am well-aquainted with such children.
Knowledged plus experienced, I can tell you this: So long as a 'soul' lives ,
especially blessed with choice individuals knowing how to (non-verbally) 'communicate' with such folks,
they can find out the wants/wishes of said Clients. By the grace of God,
matters of 'LIFE, & the Quality' thereof, belongs to each soul housed inside a mortal-body.

(those rights do not belong to a doctor, or parents.) - God gave each person these Choices...;
and NOone has the right to interrupt God's plans...- using a "plug".

So long as each person wants! to remain on earth ,
ample... are the examples of recovered... people - in answer to your question
.

 

[Alunyel]

For the most part I have left CF, then again some threads tuck at me.

Having worked in medical-arenas for some 30 years, I am well-aquainted with such children.
Knowledged plus experienced, I can tell you this: So long as a 'soul' lives ,
especially blessed with choice individuals knowing how to (non-verbally) 'communicate' with such folks,
they can find out the wants/wishes of said Clients. By the grace of God,
matters of 'LIFE, & the Quality' thereof, belongs to each soul housed inside a mortal-body.

(those rights do not belong to a doctor, or parents.) - God gave each person these Choices...;
and NOone has the right to interrupt God's plans...- using a "plug".

So long as each person wants! to remain on earth ,
ample... are the examples of recovered... people - in answer to your question
.

And if they're physically incapable of communicating whether or not they want to, yet have no chance of ever being able to convey that information?

What if in the above scenario the hospital has run out of life support machines and everyone else on one stands a good chance of recovering?

What if in the above scenarios a new patient comes in who needs one, urgently, and stands a good chance of recovery if they get one, but the longer it's left, the less chance they stand of recovery?

 

[MoonLancer]

if this child is anything like Terri Schiavo, well i would pull the plug myself. Forcing someones body to live when they have been clearly dead for years is wrong. It is a fate worse then death. Terri Schiavos brain was literally rotting in her head. It physically was turning to smushy slushy goo.

 

[lawtonfogle]

The thing is its not societys money (that would be socialism and thats what most in the USA dont want, I dont want to pay for your indecision), the parents will be paying that debt off for the rest of thier life as I am guessing insurance companies are (and rightly so) picky about paying for stuff like this.

Off topic, but insurance companies are picky about paying any bill greater than a couple months of ones premium.

Also, if we were to force the parents to keep the child on life support, can we force them to pay for it as well? Especially if the price goes into the millions, and double so if the child still dies a year later (99% chance of living means that 1/100 die)? If not, who pays?

 

[sk8Joyful]

if
this child is anything like Terri Schiavo, well i would pull the plug myself. Forcing
someones body to live when they have been clearly dead for years is wrong.

Terri Schiavos brain was literally rotting in her head.
It physically was turning to smushy slushy goo.

it is partly because of comments such as that one, that I post less & less on CF.

opinions, only opinions, did start off, with IF,
with awareness & experience deteriorating thereafter.

to the OP: want to gain seasoned knowing & experienced responses??
then please have such discussions... with people who, in fact, possess relevant knowledge & experience;
scarce, almost non-existant in CF.

 

[MoonLancer]

it is partly because of comments such as that one, that I post less & less on CF.

Because i am disgusted with the idea of forcing people to be trapped in prisons of broken flesh against their will?

Because i don't play ball so to speak?

 

[sk8Joyful]

Originally Posted by sk8Joyful

it is partly because of comments such as that one, that I post less & less on CF.
​

Because i am disgusted
with the idea of forcing people to be trapped in prisons of broken flesh against their will?

Because i don't play ball, so to speak?

No.

Because of mistaken beliefs (that's what they are), that any person, parents, medicals, or governmental-entity, has a right, to 'force people to die' , and then hasten their death. < All such, any person of sound mind, should most definitely find, as you say "disgusting"!!
--- back to the OP's question:
Yes, so long as God grants existence, it is our sacred opportunity, to positively/constructively HELP
by empowering such people to LIVE... the LIFE, as God/Jesus us Lovingly invites abundantly...
.

 

[MoonLancer]

ironically my mom specifically gave me power of attorney over her in such dire times, and denied it to my sister for the very reason that i would have mercy to end her life if it ever came to such a torturous existence trapped in a corpse, while my sister who is christian would never honer my moms wishes over her own selfish beliefs.

funny how that works huh?

 

[keith99]

ironically my mom specifically gave me power of attorney over her in such dire times, and denied it to my sister for the very reason that i would have mercy to end her life if it ever came to such a torturous existence trapped in a corpse, while my sister who is christian would never honer my moms wishes over her own selfish beliefs.

funny how that works huh?

This thread was about pulling the plug. right? We are not talking about doing anything to end life, simply no longer performing massive artificial means to keep someone undead.

Which one is playing God? I know you and i agree. Save perhaps that depending on each of our moods it can change as to which of says 'Not God, Satan'.

 

[jayem]

I work in health care and have served on a hospital ethics committee.

In actual practice, decisions about life support for a child are made by the parents or legal guardian in consultation with the physicians. Generally, discontinuing life support for a child should be made much less readily than with an adult. Children usually have greater recuperative powers than adults, and can often bounce back from very severe illness. Because it's much tougher to know when enough is enough, I would never end life support on a child unless the parents concur. I've not personally seen the situation where a parent wants to discontinue life support completely against medical advice. I strongly doubt any physician would comply. I'm sure the hospital would get a court order to temporarily suspend parental custody in this situation (like how blood is administered to a child in hemorrhagic shock whose parents are JWs.)

A pet peeve of mine: the term "brain dead." Legally speaking, dead is dead. The accurate distinction is death by neurologic criteria and death by cardiorespiratory criteria. All states define specific neurologic criteria for death--such as the absence of any brain activity detectable on 2 EEGs, set at the highest gain, 24 hrs apart. And in a setting of no hypothermia and no sedative drugs. A patient who meets these criteria can be declared dead, no matter what the heart and lungs are doing. And life support is removed, unless organ donation is planned.

 

[lawtonfogle]

it is partly because of comments such as that one, that I post less & less on CF.

opinions, only opinions, did start off, with IF,
with awareness & experience deteriorating thereafter.

to the OP: want to gain seasoned knowing & experienced responses??
then please have such discussions... with people who, in fact, possess relevant knowledge & experience;
scarce, almost non-existant in CF.

I commonly engage in such topics with my professors at my University. But that is for the facts, not the ethics of it. Most teachers do not get into that (though I know a few who love to). But you seem to miss my point, I was wanting to see what the people on CF thought. It may not accurately represent society as a whole, but it gives a pretty good idea of the different views and opinions.

 

[lawtonfogle]

Originally Posted by sk8Joyful

it is partly because of comments such as that one, that I post less & less on CF.
​

No.

Because of mistaken beliefs (that's what they are), that any person, parents, medicals, or governmental-entity, has a right, to 'force people to die' , and then hasten their death. < All such, any person of sound mind, should most definitely find, as you say "disgusting"!!
--- back to the OP's question:
Yes, so long as God grants existence, it is our sacred opportunity, to positively/constructively HELP
by empowering such people to LIVE... the LIFE, as God/Jesus us Lovingly invites abundantly...
.

I think you may be confusing a dead body on life support with a living body which has a chance to recover. Also, while invoking God works finds with ethics, it cannot be used as a criterion for making laws. So how would you go about making laws concerning this?

 

[lawtonfogle]

ironically my mom specifically gave me power of attorney over her in such dire times, and denied it to my sister for the very reason that i would have mercy to end her life if it ever came to such a torturous existence trapped in a corpse, while my sister who is christian would never honer my moms wishes over her own selfish beliefs.

funny how that works huh?

For me, it would depend on the extent of the damage if I would pull the plug or not.

 

[lawtonfogle]

This thread was about pulling the plug. right? We are not talking about doing anything to end life, simply no longer performing massive artificial means to keep someone undead.

Which one is playing God? I know you and i agree. Save perhaps that depending on each of our moods it can change as to which of says 'Not God, Satan'.

Well the question is when is it just a body? What about when they are on life support, but have a >50% chance of coming off of it within a year? Are they really just a body then?

 

[lawtonfogle]

I work in health care and have served on a hospital ethics committee.

In actual practice, decisions about life support for a child are made by the parents or legal guardian in consultation with the physicians. Generally, discontinuing life support for a child should be made much less readily than with an adult. Children usually have greater recuperative powers than adults, and can often bounce back from very severe illness. Because it's much tougher to know when enough is enough, I would never end life support on a child unless the parents concur. I've not personally seen the situation where a parent wants to discontinue life support completely against medical advice. I strongly doubt any physician would comply. I'm sure the hospital would get a court order to temporarily suspend parental custody in this situation (like how blood is administered to a child in hemorrhagic shock whose parents are JWs.)

A pet peeve of mine: the term "brain dead." Legally speaking, dead is dead. The accurate distinction is death by neurologic criteria and death by cardiorespiratory criteria. All states define specific neurologic criteria for death--such as the absence of any brain activity detectable on 2 EEGs, set at the highest gain, 24 hrs apart. And in a setting of no hypothermia and no sedative drugs. A patient who meets these criteria can be declared dead, no matter what the heart and lungs are doing. And life support is removed, unless organ donation is planned.

Is that the standard in all states?

I have, for personal reasons, always gone by information death, except one can lose the information their brain holds and survive (though I can think of only one case of this happening, and it involved a child). Your standard sounds much more... standardy...

 

[atomweaver]

[abuse of emoticons rectified.]

Originally Posted by sk8Joyful
Because of mistaken beliefs (that's what they are), that any person, parents, medicals, or governmental-entity, has a right, to 'force people to die', and then hasten their death. <

As the saying goes; your argument might have merit, on the day that not collecting stamps becomes a hobby...

All such, any person of sound mind, should most definitely find, as you say "disgusting"!!
--- back to the OP's question:
Yes, so long as God grants existence,

Bolded for emphasis; I think it is pretty clear that the OP contemplates situations where, absent life support, the patient would die. In such cases, God has revoked his grant of existence, and so what follows is rendered moot.

it is our sacred opportunity, to positively/constructively HELP
by empowering such people to LIVE... the LIFE, as God/Jesus us Lovingly invites abundantly...

Bolded for emphasis again. Except for donation, there is nothing positive or constructive about sustaining human organs absent sentience.