Feeding tube all over again? Sort of.
This one is complicated.
Emilio is 17 months old and has a rare genetic disorder that's ravaging his central nervous system. He cannot see, speak, or eat. A ventilator breathes for him in the Pediatric Intensive Care Unit at Austin Children's Hospital, where he's been since December. Without the ventilator, Emilio would die within hours.
The hospital contends that keeping Emilio alive on a ventilator is painful for the toddler and useless against his illness -- Leigh's disease, a rare degenerative disorder that has no cure.
Under Texas law, Children's has the right to withdraw life support if medical experts deem it medically inappropriate.
Emilio's mother, Catarina Gonzales, on the other hand, is fighting to keep her son on the ventilator, allowing him to die "naturally, the way God intended."
...
Dr. Ross says that under the law, some dozen times hospitals have pulled the plug against the family's wishes. She says more often than not, the law is used against poor families. "The law is going to be used more commonly against poor, vulnerable populations. If this family could pay for a nurse to take care of the boy at home, we wouldn't be having this conversation," she said.
Emilio is on Medicaid, which usually doesn't pay for all hospital charges. The hospital's spokesman said that he doesn't know how much it's costing the hospital to keep Emilio alive, but that cost was not a consideration in the hospital's decision.
It seems awfully cruel to keep a blind, mute, immobile child in pain with no chance for recovery alive on a machine. I certainly don't see the mother's thinking in this at all. :headshake
"I want my son to dienaturally! So keep him on the machine!"
It is very sad.
How does keeping him on a ventilator allow him to "die naturally, the way God intended" though? That ventilator is the exact opposite of natural. Hmmmm...
The article also says:
But Gonzales says her son is on heavy doses of morphine and not in pain. She said her son does react to her. "I put my finger in his hand, and I'm talking to him, and he'll squeeze it," she says. "Then he'll open his eyes and look at me."
With all due respect for the family's pain, heavy doses of morphine for a tiny baby are hardly natural, either.
Allow him to stay on the ventilator if that parent pays for all the trouble they will put on the hospital.
This is the worst kind of double-bind conflict for a conservative: taking some of their precious money VS the sanctity of life.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHa! :devil:
Maybe someone should just shoot the kid with their handgun - themercenary, you feel up to it? [/cynical sarcasm]
This is the worst kind of double-bind conflict for a conservative: taking some of their precious money VS the sanctity of life.
There's no double bind here at all. No amount of money is going to give this child any kind of a life.
"Dying naturally the way God intended" would occur after the ventilator was removed. Continuing the morphine would both relieve any pain, as well as depress respirations sufficiently that death would likely come more quickly.
It's a sad situation, but keeping him on the vent is sadder.
Probably an unfair question but ... are the parents citizens? If they aren't, do you get deported if your anchor baby dies?
We have had to go thru this desision befor ( not with a baby but with and elderly person ) , HARD does not EVEN begine to describe it :(
My feelings were and are , if the vent is the ONLY thing keeping said person alive , and there is NO hope for recovery ( ANY Quality of life ) then the vent should be romoved , High doeses of Morphene are WAY in order !!!, And let nature take its corse . :(
If the parents want to keep him on the vent then they should PAY every F**king cent it takes to keep him on it .
It is very sad.
How does keeping him on a ventilator allow him to "die naturally, the way God intended" though? That ventilator is the exact opposite of natural. Hmmmm...
The article also says: But Gonzales says her son is on heavy doses of morphine and not in pain. She said her son does react to her. "I put my finger in his hand, and I'm talking to him, and he'll squeeze it," she says. "Then he'll open his eyes and look at me."
With all due respect for the family's pain, heavy doses of morphine for a tiny baby are hardly natural, either.
I'm generally a pull-the-plug sort of person for PVSs etc, but if this kid is responding to touch, let him be. Pull the plug when he is not longer able to be aware of his surroundings.
So the whole Terry Schiavo mess could have been avoided if he'd just moved her to Texas and stopped paying the bills.
The funny thing is that GWB is the one who enacted this law. I guess knocking off the sick makes more room for the snowflake children.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not against pulling the plug in extreme cases. It's just that having an institution or 'the State' make the decision is a very slippery slope.
OK, how much morphine does it take to make the kid unaware of his surroundings?
Is he responding to anyone else, or is it his mothers wishful thinking?
Pull the plug.
Finger grasping can be a reflex, IIRC.
My mom was full out unconscious the other night (I'll have to explain elsewhere so as not to derail this thread), but was still able to grasp and squeeze my fingers with a good deal of strength, however, she was not doing so volitionally.
Finger grasping can be a reflex, IIRC.
My mom was full out unconscious the other night (I'll have to explain elsewhere so as not to derail this thread), but was still able to grasp and squeeze my fingers with a good deal of strength, however, she was not doing so volitionally.
It is a reflex among babies but it is suppose to go way in the first few months after birth.
Maybe it came back or something...
This is the worst kind of double-bind conflict for a conservative: taking some of their precious money VS the sanctity of life.
Glad someone made this comment for me. :p
In the Schiavo case, it was easy to see where the situation should fall, legally. In this case it seems more difficult because, well, doesn't seem as if the parents are, in effect, torturing this child?
It is a reflex among babies but it is suppose to go way in the first few months after birth...
Some folks never develop beyond their survival reflexes.
The doctors are the only ones who can make a decision that is really beneficial to the child here. The mother may not be ready to accept her child's death yet, but if the doctor in charge of his care knows there is no hope for his survival then his expertise gives him the responsibility of decision. It's not an issue of 'The State' making decisions on pulling plugs either, it's a medical diagnosis, not a political one.
Damn this article. At the top, it says his problems are that he can't see, can't eat, can't talk, can't breathe, is in pain, and there is no cure. I wrote this big long post listing the reasons why the plug shouldn't be pulled, since the kid isn't in a coma. His symptoms suck, but he is alert. You don't pull the plug on people who are awake.
After writing the big long post, I re-read the article, and it isn't until I see buried in the tail end of the article that the boy "is unaware of his surroundings." In my mind, that is the biggest point, and they bury it. Put it in the first paragraph CNN, you morons.
Anyway, they should pull the plug. Let the poor kid go.
This is the worst kind of double-bind conflict for a conservative: taking some of their precious money VS the sanctity of life.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHa! :devil:
Maybe someone should just shoot the kid with their handgun - themercenary, you feel up to it? [/cynical sarcasm]
No, but I would gladly turn off the vent if that is the final decision of the team.
My mom was full out unconscious the other night, but was still able to grasp and squeeze my fingers with a good deal of strength, however, she was not doing so volitionally.
This entire concept was described by a researcher on this subject in Scientific American - I believe the current and latest issue.
If the hospital pulls the plug, the parents can sue for wrongful death.
You want to be 'pro-choice'; well the parents are choosing for the child to live. Let's go to Nazi Germany where several non-Aryan parents had no choice whether their children live or die.
If the hospital pulls the plug, the parents can sue for wrongful death.
In Texas at least, where this case is, they will not win. There are a dozen cases of precedent.
If the hospital pulls the plug, the parents can sue for wrongful death.
You want to be 'pro-choice'; well the parents are choosing for the child to live. Let's go to Nazi Germany where several non-Aryan parents had no choice whether their children live or die.
What the fuck does Nazi Germany have to do with this case. Oh, that's right...nothing.
Screw Godwin.
You want to be 'pro-choice'; well the parents are choosing for the child to live.
The parents are perfectly welcome to take the kid out of the hospital and to a nursing home, private care facility, or home with them. That way the hospital and Doctors can get on with the business of helping people and stop wasting time and resources on a vegetable.
Screw Godwin. The parents are perfectly welcome to take the kid out of the hospital and to a nursing home, private care facility, or home with them. That way the hospital and Doctors can get on with the business of helping people and stop wasting time and resources on a vegetable.
Someone please give this dude a trophy.
In the Schiavo case, it was easy to see where the situation should fall, legally.
You're kidding, right? Congress and the State of Florida both tried to intervene, so it wasn't easy for a lot of people who should have known better.
Screw Godwin. The parents are perfectly welcome to take the kid out of the hospital and to a nursing home, private care facility, or home with them.
Which is what happened in the original case (for different reasons):
Karen Ann Quinlan and a resulting
hospice program .
You're kidding, right? Congress and the State of Florida both tried to intervene, so it wasn't easy for a lot of people who should have known better.
It was easy for people without a political agenda.