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

[Suzannah]

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.

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]

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.

 

[Suzannah]

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.

I know. We're just too stupid too.

 

[joebobned]

How civilised. Barbaric societies would be proud. If only they could see us now.

Mercy Killing = Ritual Sacrifice????

 

[Suzannah]

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.

 

[Links234]

UberLutheran, as your sig says:

"Who are the righteous? They are those who fulfill the law of love and under that law "mercy triumphs over judgment" (James 2:12-13)

Mercy should be most important. That baby is experiencing nothing but constant, excruciating pain. Why should her parents be selfish and force her to live that way? "Living" being relative, of course. Yes, it's sad and unfair, but that little girl deserves to finally be at peace.

And people wonder why I'm an atheist...


(Edit because I speak [some] German, and I'm a horrid nitpicker: It's Ueber (or über). It's a mistake that everyone makes that just really gets under my skin; sorry)

 

[joebobned]

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.

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.

 

[Suzannah]

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.

Fine. The trappings of religious ritual are absent in this. But " the Enemy of our Salvation was a murderer from the beginning." The motivation is the same. And so is the tendency toward gnosticism, secular as it is. Only the "conscious" and only those with "intellectual fulfillment" are worthy of life.

 

[joebobned]

only those with "intellectual fulfillment" are worthy of life.

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?

 

[Suzannah]

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?

Good point.

In this scenario, fortunately for me, He did not say "I promise you a life of luxury and ease". This would only lead me personally, into further selfishness and sin, than I am stuck in already...I am too weak to spiritually survive such a life.

He said, "Take up thy cross and follow Me." He also said, "He (or she!) that endures to the end, shall be saved."

This life does not matter one iota. It is only training for eternal life. Temporal things are not in the realm of the Heavenly.
This body of mine, shall be changed.

 

[fejao]

I think this is a very difficult ethical dilemma, one one hand the baby should be given the chance to live and yet doing this means that baby will be in pain and probally have a host of physical problems throught its life. I personally side on the side of the doctors, I think the baby should be allowed to die. Why well because the baby is being kept alive artificially, if the baby was left to its own devices it would probally die in a very short time anyway, due to its under-developed organs.

So do you consider stopping medical treatment, murder or continuing medical treatment playing God and delaying what should happen ie, death?

I myself am in the medical profession and I see lots and lots of familes wanting to keep their relatives alive for ever more with drugs, instead of letting them go with dignity and without pain, instead of coming to term with death, they try to fight it unsuccesfully.

Also please dont take my post a calous or cold, I think seeing people die frequently and in many situations, it allows you to see past the final act of death and look at the person and their quality of life and its a very rewarding time to care for someone to the best of your ability in their last days.

Fejao x

 

[Jacob4Jesus]

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.

 

[Jacob4Jesus]

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.

'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.

 

[Jacob4Jesus]

I see. And her parents who have spent years loving her, have none? Or the right to it?

The baby is 11 months old and has been in pain the entire time. The parents have not loved her for years.

There is also no reason why her life should be terminated just to satisfy your point of view.

I don't think the arguement is about terminating a life to satisfy someone's point of view. The arguement is about letting the body die when it decides that it is time for it to die. Letting a body that is dying die, is much different than taking someone in no danger of death and killing them.

They're just too stupid and uneducated to understand, but you a sixteen year old, can summarily dismiss the life of their child.

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.

 

[BobbieDog]

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.

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.

What transpired between the pair is not incidental to the topic. Armed2010 was advancing a perspective which is embedded within the prevailing conventional process: he was going with the big battalion flow; he was constantly re-iterating the contention that Charlottes life was untenable, and her life quality intolerable. Suzanah was coming from out with that conventional consensus and process: and advancing the suggestion that what we saw in these matters concerning Charlotte, could be ineluctably tied to that life form we were otherwise committed to.

The basic tension is between an established consensus, in all its social ramification: and persons sustained in and suggesting perspective out with that consensus.

In relation to the body of people, medical experts and administrators, constituting the hospital: Charlottes parents were outside the big battalion consensus.

Suzanaha's use of the term "intelligentsia" could be used to label this particular big battalion: so I can somewhat stand with here in this initial moment of her commentary; and like her, raise profound concerns about what happens to those whose grounding perspectives are out with this consensus of the intelligentsia.

Now it so happens, that those who are disabled, are out with this intelligentsia: those who suffer pain in their disability, are out with this intelligentsia; that those who have best pioneered the care of the disabled, are out with this intelligentsias; those who are themselves disabled, are often out with this intelligentsia.

The bottom line of all this is: that this constituency, out with the intelligentsia, and with whom the Irish common people are replete; use perspective other than do the intelligentsia.

The problem in the Charlotte case is not the parent's opinion, or attitude, or even Charlotte's medical condition. The problem is that the relationship between these parents and the hospital broke down.

I would suspect that this relationship broke down on two broad fronts: where the parents were unable to understand and embrace the perspectives of the hospital; and where the hospital were unable to understand and embrace the perspectives of the parents.

The court case was settled by elevating the perspectives of the hospital, and discounting the perspectives of the parents.

The matter of the relation between the two sets of perspectives, which was the true fulcrum of failure, was simply not explored.

What Suzanah and Armed2010 have entered into, is merely reprise of what the parents and hospital came to.

What is then required is not apologies: but exploration of the frustration which lead each to take position as they did, and consequently act as they did.



Fejao lays out indication of just how difficult an ethical problem was involved here: is still involved for Charlotte, her parents, and the hospital. That ethical problem was simply not explored in the legal presentation preceding judgment: which makes its ruling, and the precedent it sets for medical practice, both inadequate and dangerous.

What is now required, and will inevitably take case, is more irregular challenge to medical practice: where medical orthodoxy, as Suzanah presages, will be challenged simply in being an orthodoxy; where in carrying the degree of perspectival closure associated with orthodoxy, and especially in connection with the doctor-patient (carer) relation, an inability to flexibly open to consideration of perspective out with that orthodoxy, will see medical care less effective than it might be.

This case shows how indirect and reflexive that failure in care can be. In this instance that care failed, as a failure of relation between parent and hospital: the suffering that accrued through that failure, is initially with the parents; although their loss of disposal over their daughter's medical care, then leads to that care being withdrawn.



I would wonder whether a degree of orthodoxy that is demanded in the application of highly technical medical procedures: has illegitimately migrated over into other parts of the doctor-patient (carer) relation; to where an unorthodoxy (that of Charlotte's parental perspectives) that in no way would have competed with this required technical orthodoxy, was something somewhat alien to these doctors.

Where we deal with administrators, this characteristic as to orthodoxy is often much more pronounced: where they can become impervious to perspectives that are not met in their day to day life work.



What must not be forgotten about this hospital, is that it has a track record of being aggressive, pioneering one might say, in a willingness to take life and death decisions that other hospitals choose not to.

 

[Jacob4Jesus]

okay, but none of that touches on the point that she made a personal attack on Armed's ability to make a judgement based on his age. That is unfair. Yes, they were both being kinda harsh in the things they were saying, but Armed did not personally attack Suzanah. She attacked him by making the statement that his age prevents him from making his own opinion.

 

[Lillithspeak]

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]

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.

HI,
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

 

[BobbieDog]

HI,

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

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.

What is essential is that we build and apply the perspective in which these matters can be fully addressed and debated. Beyond my empathy with Charlotte's parents, and concern for Charlotte: is a conviction that the manner of leading this case has taken us away from that perspective; where in not focusing, as we should have done, on the relation between parents and hospital, we have handed unaccountable power in such debate to medical experts and administrators.

You say, "the problem is her parents have not come to this place of accepting their childs dealth". I fully agree, this is the nub of the case, and the fulcrum of the perspective we need to apply.

We then have to recognise that the parent's position and perspectives could have been more aggressively applied. Experts can be wrong: the expertise of one era is often not supported by the next. There can be disciplinary differences of opinion, which have not been revealed. The provisionality, and balance of probabilities in an expert opinion, can wrongly become incontrovertible fact. There can be difference of view as between disciplines, say psychology and cardiology, which can be underplayed: where these differences can shade into dramatically alternate understandings which might be held to by religions and life philosophies.

The whole matter of faith was never opened up. Not faith as wishy washy mythology: but faith as deep psychology; faith as applied ontology. The faith of this family, both as psychology which played into parental-child relation: and as regards the being which these parents might have had hope of inculcating in their child; was simply not led, not discussed, not considered, not debated.

None of these things which might have been better raised on the parent's side are killer elements: and none of them take the priority away from Charlotte's well being; but, without their being raised all that we have is a show trial, where that trial simply does not go beyond the parading of an extant consensus of comprehension. The trial adds nothing beyond a formalisation of what obtains: it gives no deeper insight; no wider comprehension.

 

[BobbieDog]

This article begins to explore just why the Charlotte Wyatt case does not end with the recent legal trial and ruling: but only really begins with that ruling.

The committee includes two lawyers, two philosophers, paediatric experts, parents' groups and disability campaigners.

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.

http://news.independent.co.uk/low_res/story.jsp?story=570407&host=3&dir=59

<H1>Ethics review set up after ruling on Wyatt baby

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."

</H1>