Right, her parents, who brought into the world, loved her to distraction, just don't get it. They're just too stupid and uneducated to understand.armed2010 said:
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Right, her parents, who brought into the world, loved her to distraction, just don't get it. They're just too stupid and uneducated to understand.armed2010 said:Her parents dont seem to understand that all they are doing is extending their childs suffering. The doctors realize that this baby is dying, and that attempts to keep her alive will just hurt the child more. I will take their educated opinion over the selfish wants of the parents.
I know. We're just too stupid too.armed2010 said:I dont really see how I can explain this further, so after this I will stop trying to continue. We have a child whos every living moment is filled with pain, so much that the doctors have labled it inhuman. She is about to die, ending her suffering, and the parents want doctors to intervene with aggressive surgery to keep this suffering baby alive, just to satisfy themselves. I find this inhuman, and thats just my opinion.
Mercy Killing = Ritual Sacrifice????How civilised. Barbaric societies would be proud. If only they could see us now.
Yes. Read religious history. Ritual sacrifices in pagan cultures, most notably my own (Irish) often involved the lame, the infirm, the sick, the weak....Mercy killing looks pretty familiar to me.joebobned said:
Mercy Killing = Ritual Sacrifice????
Yes. Read religious history. Ritual sacrifices in pagan cultures, most notably my own (Irish) often involved the lame, the infirm, the sick, the weak....Mercy killing looks pretty familiar to me.
joebobned said:That probably is the case.
However in my time spend with 'religious history' Mayan ritual sacrifice prefered great warriors and nobles from opposing tribes.
I'm also remembering "Of Mice and Men". I don't really see the connection there between mercy killing and ritual sacrifice.
Or in this case deciding who gets to live.only those with "intellectual fulfillment" are worthy of life.
Good point.joebobned said:
Or in this case deciding who gets to live.
Let's get philisophical--
If you were born into a world where you only felt excruciating pain every second of every day--every day of your life--would you take it? Do you think God would want you to take it?
'Allowing' someone to die, is much different than putting them to death. To compare what the doctors want to do as 'murder' is a bad arguement. If I was choking and you didn't give me the heimlich manuever, does that you make you guilty of murder? It's not always in the best interests to resucitate a body. At some point, medical science has to 'allow' a body to die. This babies body keeps dying over and over and the doctors keep bringing it back to life. How do we know that it's not the baby's time to die? Why is it our right to question that when God might be trying to end the baby's suffering by having her die.Suzannah said:Excuse me, but it has everything to do with Charlotte.
And contrary to your belief, the Judge is not allowing her life to be extended, because the socialistic system that exists in Britain in heavily influenced by intellectual elites who believe that "quality of life" is for the intelligenzia to decide, not the individual, nor the individual's immediate family. Indeed, it is everything to do with Charlotte.
Cloaking and sanctioning murder, in the guise of "alleviating suffering" is pretty much what I call it. Your flag is American. Try living (and dying) in Britain. Both are a daily struggle for survival.
The baby is 11 months old and has been in pain the entire time. The parents have not loved her for years.I see. And her parents who have spent years loving her, have none? Or the right to it?
There is also no reason why her life should be terminated just to satisfy your point of view.
Lastly, that's a very unfair attack on Armed2010. I am very shocked that you would insult somebody based upon their age. Just because Armed is 16 doesn't mean he is in any less of a position to formulate an opinion. I think you owe him an apology.They're just too stupid and uneducated to understand, but you a sixteen year old, can summarily dismiss the life of their child.
No, I do not think Suzanah owes Armed2010 an apology. Were they to give each other a mutual cuddle of recognising how harsh they unintentionally were to one another, then that that would be something else.Jacob4Jesus said:Lastly, that's a very unfair attack on Armed2010. I am very shocked that you would insult somebody based upon their age. Just because Armed is 16 doesn't mean he is in any less of a position to formulate an opinion. I think you owe him an apology.
HI,Lillithspeak said:The judge and the hospital were correct in their decisions. To force anyone, child, adult, infant to suffer agonizing pain because you don't want them to die, is incredibly selfish. Because we have become used to a system of medical care that manages to keep alive those who woudn't have survived even 20 years ago, we are losing our ability to face the fact that death has a purpose. It ends that which needs to be ended. Can you imagine this world where people dying of excruciating cancers are forcefully resusitated and made to continue living because their relatives just can't accept that death happens? Who does that benefit? Is that God's plan? If so, why would he allow them to keep dying, over and over again? Perhaps this is God's message? That there is a time and a season for all things, and this child's time has come to return to God. The parents will have to grieve and move on. Having lost a baby in our family twice, one at 15 months, one aged 2 yrs, I know that grief, so I don't say this lightly.
fejao said:
I agree that we have to ask and answer questions about when we apply medical techniques. My wife is a nurse, we have had friends and relatives die: it is a fairly constant topic in our home, as to just where the balances lie in applying aggressive resuscitative techniques, or in fact in making any use of silver bullet medical capability.fejao said:Lillithspeak I am sorry to hear of your loss. I agree with you that death is an important final act that we all have to come to terms with and accept, I think the problem is her parents have not come to this place of accepting their childs dealth.
I also think the what is also over looked is the hurt that this is causing the medical staff who are caring for the child. Now I know many people will shoot me down for this but it is a reality. I have many a time resucitated a patient who was dying of terminal cancer and multiple medical problems, because the family could not bear their relative to depart. I myself have many a time been seriously upset after bringing a patient back to life, only for them asking me to leave them to die. Another fact is that sometimes the best act of kindness is to let someone die. Its a huge ethical mind field, one with many pro's and con's and being humans someone will always disagree with your actions.
Fejao x
It is the absence from the origonal trial of just such expert perspective, that made it so unsatisfactory. This committee investigation covers more than just the Charlotte Wyatt case, although it will consider it and its ruling. Rather what the investigation will perhaps seek, is a more through and seminal mapping of just what has to be taken into consideration, in the genre of medical instances to which the Charlotte Wyatt case belongs.The committee includes two lawyers, two philosophers, paediatric experts, parents' groups and disability campaigners.
<H1>Ethics review set up after ruling on Wyatt baby
</H1>By Maxine Frith, Social Affairs Correspondent
09 October 2004
An independent review into the ethics of resuscitating and treating extremely premature babies has been set up, amid growing concern among doctors and parents over how such life and death decisions are taken.
The agonising dilemmas facing families and the medical profession over the treatment of premature children have been highlighted by the case of 11-month-old Charlotte Wyatt.
On Thursday, a High Court judge ruled that doctors should be allowed to let Charlotte die, despite her parents' demands that she should be revived and actively treated if she stopped breathing. Charlotte was born three months' premature and suffers from severe mental and physical handicaps that doctors say have left her in constant pain with an "intolerable" quality of life. The case centred on the ethics of how aggressively sick babies should be treated when they have severe disabilities and poor future prospects.
Now the Nuffield Council on Bioethics, an independent body that makes recommendations on how doctors should deal with complex ethical issues, has established a specialist working party. The committee has been asked to look at the ethics of prolonging life in foetuses and very premature babies.
It has not been prompted by the Charlotte Wyatt case, but will consider the judge's ruling as part of its investigation.
Professor Margaret Brazier, professor of law at the University of Manchester, will chair the working party. She said: "I am approaching this with some trepidation because there are so many issues and opinions surrounding this subject.
"There is a question over whether, because we can now treat these babies, should we be treating them and how much."
Doctors make decisions about the resuscitation of newborn, premature babies based on their "viability". Premature babies are now surviving at 22 weeks' gestation and being revived by medical teams. In contrast, Dutch doctors have clear guidelines, which state that babies born under 25 weeks should not be revived.
Professor Brazier said: "This whole area raises very, very strong feelings and difficult ethical issues. The science can be inexact. We cannot make rules simply on gestational age."
The committee includes two lawyers, two philosophers, paediatric experts, parents' groups and disability campaigners.
Rob Williams, the chief executive of the premature baby charity Bliss, said: "It can be very difficult for doctors and parents in individual cases because the emotions on a premature baby ward can be so raw and on the surface."
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?