Perhaps the worst news story I have read in a long time

[BobbieDog]

Mencap Press Release.

Press release

Charlotte Wyatt case

8 October 2004

Jo Williams, Mencap’s chief executive, said: “We are disappointed that the High Court has ruled against prolonging the life of Charlotte Wyatt. We offer our sympathies to her parents who fought long and hard to prolong her life in the hope that her health would improve.

“Doctors should not make assumptions about the quality of life of disabled children. Parents of extremely premature babies who are born with disabilities should always be fully involved in decisions about whether they want their child to be resuscitated. These difficult decisions for doctors and parents of very fragile children must properly take account of the value of the child’s life and whether prolonging it would lead to intolerable pain.

We need to meet this growing number of premature babies with positive, practical solutions and we should never lose sight of the fact that it is society’s obligation that all of its offspring should be nurtured, regardless of their vulnerability.”

Mencap press release – Chatlotte Wyatt case.

http://www.mencap.org.uk/html/press_office/press_release.asp?ID=1538



Mencap – The UK’s leading learning disability charity.

http://www.mencap.org.uk/index.htm

 

[BobbieDog]

"When you get to the stage when you grow to love someone, you can't just throw them away like a bad egg and say you will get a different egg" - Mr Wyatt

'No regrets' for baby Charlotte's parents
8.17PM, Mon Oct 11 2004

The parents of critically ill baby Charlotte Wyatt say they have no regrets after losing a High Court battle to prolong her life.

The judge ruled that Charlotte, who is clinging to life in a hospital oxygen box, can be allowed to die if her breathing stops.

Charlotte's father Darren, 33, said: "We can say to Daniel [Charlotte's brother] when he is older, that we tried everything. We even went to the High Court for your sister."

The judge gave Charlotte's doctors permission not to resuscitate her - despite a plea by her distraught parents that everything should be done to give her the chance of life, however short.

Giving his judgement, Mr Justice Hedley said Charlotte should be given three things.

"As much comfort as possible, as much time as possible to spend in the presence and in contact with her parents and she should be allowed to meet her end, in the words of Mr Wyatt, with the TLC of those who love her the most," the judge said.

The court had heard from paediatric experts that the baby, who weighed just a pound and measured only five inches when she was born three months premature at St Mary's Hospital, Portsmouth, last October, had no feelings other than continuing pain.

She cannot see or hear, has serious brain, lung and kidney damage, is fed through a tube, needs a constant supply of oxygen and is incapable of voluntary movement or response. She has already stopped breathing three times.

Whatever happens, she is not expected to live beyond a further year and is likely to succumb to a respiratory infection this winter. Her quality of life has been described as "terrible and permanent".

Portsmouth Hospitals NHS Trust, which had to seek a court ruling in the absence of consent from the parents, has said that, in the event of another respiratory crisis, it will keep Charlotte alive long enough for them to be at her cotside during her final moments.

The Wyatts had urged the judge not to give up on their daughter.

A committed Christian like his wife, Mr Wyatt had told the court: "When you get to the stage when you grow to love someone, you can't just throw them away like a bad egg and say you will get a different egg."

Sep 30: Parents fight to let their baby live

 

[BobbieDog]

The NHS trust hospital which brought the Charlotte Wyatt case to court appointed a new CEO in May of this year, charged with turning round a failed hospital.
This CEO is part of a new register not drawn from traditional medical and management staff: such appointment being part of a new breed of "super" persons, who the New Labour government tend to throw at any emerging problem.
It is beyond credibility that the recovery programme instituted by this new CEO, is not connected with the bringing of the Charlotte Wyatt case, and the manner of its presentation.
The Charlotte Wyatt case was presented as if it were purely clinically driven. This is almost certain to have not been the case. Non clinical management, with management and budgetary agenda, in all probability led and directed the case bringing and presentation.
This need not void the judgment, but must sustain deep suspicions about: the initial breakdown in relation between hospital and parents; the motivation for bringing the case; the manner of its presentation in court; and, most crucially, what use this trust, and more widely the NHS will make of this ruling.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1974659.stm

Wednesday, 8 May, 2002, 12:10 GMT 13:10 UK

Managers take over 'failing' hospitals
.. ... ..




The appointments came as the Department of Health advertised for organisations and individuals outside the NHS to join a register from which future appointments to run failing trusts will be made.





The new chief executives, all of whom have worked in the NHS before, have been charged with turning around the trusts which each received a "no star" rating in league tables published last year.

.. ... ..

The move follows the government's decision to "franchise out" the running of those NHS hospitals, which have failed to improve patient services.



The hospitals affected are:



Ashford and St Peter's NHS Trust

Dartford and Gravesham NHS Trust

Portsmouth Hospitals NHS Trust

Barnet and Chase Farm NHS Trust, London

Health Secretary Alan Milburn said: "Patients at these trusts will benefit from sustained improvements in performance based on action plans which have addressed the specific weaknesses identified at these trusts.

.. ... ..

The Department of Health placed advertisements in national newspapers on Wednesday inviting organisations and individuals outside the health service to apply to join a register from which future appointments to failing hospitals will be made.



The adverts state: "The government is establishing a register from which experts from the NHS and from the public, voluntary and private sectors may be drawn to compete for franchises to run NHS organisations and trusts."



However, the move has come in for criticism from the leader of the fourth largest trade union in the country.



John Edmonds, general secretary of the GMB, said: "What have things come to when the government is selling off parts of our health service as if they were selling a used car?



"People want their hospitals run by dedicated public servants, not by fat cats after a fast buck."

 

[brinny]

In fact, I understand losing a child is one of the very worst experiences that one can go through.

Losing a child under circumstances like this is incomprehensible.

We can say what we like in the forum, but whatever we say is really moot considering the trauma the parents are experiencing at this time.

Amen.

 

[brinny]

The NHS trust hospital which brought the Charlotte Wyatt case to court appointed a new CEO in May of this year, charged with turning round a failed hospital.
This CEO is part of a new register not drawn from traditional medical and management staff: such appointment being part of a new breed of "super" persons, who the New Labour government tend to throw at any emerging problem.
It is beyond credibility that the recovery programme instituted by this new CEO, is not connected with the bringing of the Charlotte Wyatt case, and the manner of its presentation.
The Charlotte Wyatt case was presented as if it were purely clinically driven. This is almost certain to have not been the case. Non clinical management, with management and budgetary agenda, in all probability led and directed the case bringing and presentation.
This need not void the judgment, but must sustain deep suspicions about: the initial breakdown in relation between hospital and parents; the motivation for bringing the case; the manner of its presentation in court; and, most crucially, what use this trust, and more widely the NHS will make of this ruling.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1974659.stm

This should scare the bajeemers outta' everybody reading this.

 

[praying]

I see. And you, a complete and total stranger to the situation, "know" better. Inhuman is the extinguishing of life, any human life. I thought we had "progressed" in civilisation. "Mercy killing" is nothing more than a rehash of ritual sacrifice. In this case, the child will sacrificed in the name of "humanity". How nice. How merciful. How civilised. Barbaric societies would be proud. If only they could see us now.

First let me state that I can't imagine as a parent being in that position. Very sad. for them.

I had a similar experience; not my child my cousin whom I had grown up with. She was on dialysis, had lupus, high blood pressure, arthuritis, you name it. While in the hospital for one of her various ailments she stopped breathing but they revived her, the problem her brain had been without oxygen for too long so she was brain dead. Her sister and mother (I was in agreement) opted to have the vetilator turned off. That was one of the most heart wrenching expeeriences I had ever faced; watching her die.

Was it a mercy "killing" no. We did not "kill" her she died naturally, her body was unable to sustain life. Yes we hastened that by removing the ventilator but there has to come a point in the chronically; terrminally; irreversibly ill that quality of life makes a difference and being able to sustain your own body through the simple act of breathing I think is a fair determinant.

In the case of Charlotte this not a killing. They are not advocating stopping any life support that currently exists. This is not a case of euthanasia she will die a natural death once her body can no longer sustain itself because she has stopped breathing.

 

[brinny]

You know, as a Christian, I respect life too. In fact, as a human, I respect life too. Everyone is making so many large and in depth arguements here. I can somewhat understand that because this is a very sensitive and difficult situation being described.

But, death is just as important as life. I know that might be hard to accept for some, but it's true. If death wasn't important, well God could make us live forever in the human bodies on Earth. We ALL die... it's inevitable.

It has been hard for me to think of anything to say here. It took me a long while to respond. My first thought was "Well, what if they killed Helen Keller because of everything she was suffering through?" I of course dropped that opinion, because it wasn't really comparable. Helen Keller was not dying, like this baby obviously is.

I don't know which decision is better or which one is right. I really don't. I would hate to be the parents or the judge in this case. All I can hope, one way or the other, is that the baby gets peace of some sort. I know God will have a wonderful spot for her in Heaven.

I suspect that the parents are in more excruciating pain than the judge is.

 

[brinny]

Its pretty clear to the doctors that it is.

your compassion is underwhelming...and you even add a little twist of disdain for the parents and dismiss them as being selfish. nice.

 

[Rae]

In the case of Charlotte this not a killing.

That may be, but I understand the parents' position. Upon giving birth to my daughter in 2003 and hearing her voice for the first time, I fell in love with her and would do anything to keep her with me.

This is not a decision I could make if it were my beloved baby.

 

[BobbieDog]

First let me state that I can't imagine as a parent being in that position. Very sad. for them.

I had a similar experience; not my child my cousin whom I had grown up with. She was on dialysis, had lupus, high blood pressure, arthuritis, you name it. While in the hospital for one of her various ailments she stopped breathing but they revived her, the problem her brain had been without oxygen for too long so she was brain dead. Her sister and mother (I was in agreement) opted to have the vetilator turned off. That was one of the most heart wrenching expeeriences I had ever faced; watching her die.



Was it a mercy "killing" no. We did not "kill" her she died naturally, her body was unable to sustain life. Yes we hastened that by removing the ventilator but there has to come a point in the chronically; terrminally; irreversibly ill that quality of life makes a difference and being able to sustain your own body through the simple act of breathing I think is a fair determinant.



In the case of Charlotte this not a killing. They are not advocating stopping any life support that currently exists. This is not a case of euthanasia she will die a natural death once her body can no longer sustain itself because she has stopped breathing.

There was a working consensus UberLutheran, in the "we" which took the decision to switch off the ventilator: there was a we who factoring in love and compassion, pragmatics and practicality; took a decision to allow the ending of a life where suffering and degradation of quality had come to some pass.

Many in that "we" knew your cousin intimately, and that "knowledge" of what "she might had wanted for herself", or would have decided for some other member of the "we": all of that would have been some substantive living poetry weaving through the decision taking.

All this was absent from the case of Charlotte. The "we" was broken. The only people who had "family" relation to Charlotte, here parents, were being forcibly held outside the consensus. No one "knew" Charlotte as your family "knew" your cousin: except for the parents; and they were being excluded.

There is the factor that Charlotte had life at all, because of technological intervention earlier: technology was extended to her, to keep her alive; now this same technology was to be withdrawn, to lead to her death. Having intervened, technological medicine now has changed responsibilities.

The primary difference between the circumstance of Charlotte, and the circumstance of your family, is the relation breakdown which excluded the parents. What can then take the place of the parents: its motivation and agenda; must then be analysed, not as surrogate parents, but as what it is. What it is is managed social process: both accountancy and administration dimensioned management; and where the state seeks to take rights of disposal and protection which once were the prerogative of parents. These things must be examined in perspective as to what they are, social process: not as substitutes for parents.

You, as part of your "we" took a fair decision as regards your cousin: but none of that translates into the circumstance of Charlotte; except as regards the consensus amongst all in that "we". This is the nub with the Charlotte case: that the social relations that could have given that we, and thus the consensus; was stillborn.

Everything that we must concern ourselves with in the Charlotte case must have to do with that failure of relation. No other consideration is relevant.

My conviction is that the Hospital has railroaded Charlotte's parents, through a manipulation of public perception: where they have been portrayed as naive and selfish, requiring Charlotte's life continuation for their own ends.

We live in a time where we go to war over WMD, and lo and behold they do not exist. People believe that AQ and SH were operationally connected, despite all the evidence going the other way. One Presidential candidate being perceived in some manner, say as a flip flopper, despite what evidence might indicate, could lose them that election. Public perceptions, not hard won to fact and reality, are what move social process: and these perceptions are so often crafted by those who know how to work the system; and once a perception has momentum, no matter how unfounded, then it can be well nigh impossible to correct.

Then there is the crucial matter that so many who do know about caring, do know about caring for the disabled: simply do not share the sharp edged confidence of the doctors, either about what Charlotte's current circumstance is, or what her future prospects might be. Their perspectives do not displace those of the doctors: but they introduce qualification to judgments reached; they introduce uncertainty.

What is crucial here, beyond Charlotte personally, is whether what is done in taking disposal over her destiny, was done in the way it should be done. There are questions to be asked, and decisions to be taken: but we must ask the right questions, in the right perspectives; and we must have decisions, that when taken as precedent, see best outcome in all instances in which that precedent will apply.

The Charlotte Wyatt case and ruling does not necessarily reach those high standards.

 

[Firscherscherling]

This is an interesting case to think about. I am not sure how I feel about it.

It is similar in some ways to the Terri Schiavo case. Fore example, if this were a case where the parent's wished to let the baby die and the courts were asked to rule on it. Interesting to consider.

Similarly, it makes me wonder about cases in which a parent, for religiuos reasons, might withhold potentially life-saving treatment.

 

[brinny]

This is an interesting case to think about. I am not sure how I feel about it.

It is similar in some ways to the Terri Schiavo case. Fore example, if this were a case where the parent's wished to let the baby die and the courts were asked to rule on it. Interesting to consider.

Similarly, it makes me wonder about cases in which a parent, for religiuos reasons, might withhold potentially life-saving treatment.

At least you're seriously giving it some thought.

 

[Rochir]

It's a good decision the judge made!

It may be hard on the parents, but it is better for the kid. She was born way premature, you can easily argue God didn't wish her to live, for otehrwise he would have made it so that she could live without the aparatus and without pain.

Sometimes religious (and thus non-objective) believes have to be circumpassed in order to stop or even prevent suffering!

Besides - has God not granted that woman yet another chance at conceiving and bearing to fruition a healthy and happy child?

 

[BobbieDog]

I hope UberLutheran and Mhatten are mutually flattered at my confusing one for the other.

There is another similar case coming up in the UK, next week I think. Similar in as much as it is an infant under a year old.

 

[BobbieDog]

It's a good decision the judge made!

It may be hard on the parents, but it is better for the kid. She was born way premature, you can easily argue God didn't wish her to live, for otehrwise he would have made it so that she could live without the aparatus and without pain.



Sometimes religious (and thus non-objective) believes have to be circumpassed in order to stop or even prevent suffering!



Besides - has God not granted that woman yet another chance at conceiving and bearing to fruition a healthy and happy child?

Would you then Rochir withold all medical intervention from all premature babies?

One of the underlying discussions in cases like Charlotte's is how to regulate such intervention. Holland has set a term cut-off, which I think is 25 weeks: clearly there could still be arguments about when a particular patients term began. The UK medical institutions seem to be maneuvering to avoid such an arbitrary term cut-off: they wish to be able to continue to judge viability, of a particular child.

This leaves the UK with the advantage of avoiding arbitrary unfairness as to viability: but then also leaves the UK to develop some other basis on which to extend support to one child, and withhold it from another.

The UK is very far down the road of disability inclusion: we have mammothly strong disabled constituencies, and carers of the disabled; where we thus have democratically in play a powerful disabled lobby, with its own life philosophies almost.

From the point of view of this grouping, normal and health centered perspective has to be looked at very carefully, especially where such perspective comes to allocate resource, and decide matters of life and death. I would say that this can extend to being wary of understandings of God which centre on the normal and healthy: or equally on Darwinian notions of a nature as the disposing god, where the fittest survive.

Again, it cannot be stressed enough, that any such disabled perspective has no killer weight: merely that these perspectives have to be seen to be fully factored in.

It may be that it is best that Charlotte be allowed to die naturally, if her body begins to again succumb: no one really disputes that. It's more that the perspective and ground in and upon which we so determine: must be both ones which register all the facts and factors; and also set safe and adequate future precedent.

Many have to be uncertain whether we have attained these standards of adequacy and safety, in this instance concerning Charlotte.

 

[BobbieDog]

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2004523245,00.html

TERMINALLY-ill baby Luke Winston-Jones, who was at the centre of a High Court right-to-life battle, today died in hospital.

The 10-month-old child died at Liverpool’s Alder Hey Children’s Hospital in the early hours after developing a temperature.

 

[Suzannah]

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2004523245,00.html

Praying for wisdom and healing for everyone. Thanks for letting us know Bobbie.
God bless.
and Lord have mercy on us all.

 

[Rae]

Poor baby. May his family be comforted through their grief.

 

[ClaireZ]

Very sad. We lost a dog in July. His vertabrae had seperated, and spinal column was exposed. Our vet said he needed surgery. It would entail a 2 1/2 hour drive and cost us 1700 dollars.

My husband said are we going to do the smart thing? I told him how could we? We made that drive, and paid 400 dollars to have the dog admitted to this hi-tech vet surgery.

When we arrived home we got a call that the dog had stopped breathing and they had him on a ventilator. If they did the surgery, they did not think he would ever walk again. I cried but I let the dog go. I still miss him, and grieve for him, and he was just a little Jack Russel Terrier. I cant even imagine the pain of these parents.

 

[Stormy]

However, the COURT has NO RIGHT to make these decisions and it scares the HECK out of me that they are being made.

From all your posts, this is the comment that stands out to me!

HOW MUCH POWER DO YOU WANT TO GIVE OUR COURTS???

I do not care if it was a right or a wrong decision, it was not its decision to make!

Who gave the courts this RIGHT?

It appears that all of us have become subject to the order of the court. You are no longer safe from it by living within the law... You better not get sick or hurt, and you better not get old.

(I am sorry for using the capital letters, and screaming at you all. But we need to wake up!)