Possibility of what?
Can you explain what you think this treatment will do and why it should be carried out?
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Against his parents wishes, terminally ill infant will be allowed to die
- Thread starter Kadin
- Start date
- Status
Can you explain what you think this treatment will do and why it should be carried out?
ugaboga232
Member
As a medical student, there is a heavy emphasis (at least now) about end of life care and the ethics that are involved. Chances are this type of treatment would not be tried and even if it was, there is no way the hospital would discharge the patient to pass at home. 0% chance.
I think you're being really unfair and reductive RE the court's decision.
We don't need to go down some slippery slope argument like "death panels" or some other mis-characterization of what happened here.
Earthstrike
Member
Then we need to discuss what it means to have a percentage estimate of something occurring. In this case the odds are zero. The mechanism of treatment is understood, and brain damage is understood to a far enough extent that we can make this assertion. I totally see this gaining traction in conservative circles though where they use their lack of knowledge of science to claim that there is a "chance" and that the governments are killing babies and taking them away from their parents. It's a very dangerous precedent to set.
For all you "right call" people, you are A-OK with having this be up to the court and NOT the parents, though? I mean, there was an experimental treatment in the US. And yet...they (as in the court) is not allowing it.
I mean, I don't want the child to suffer either, but it boggles my mind that we are OK saying it's fine because hey, the court has decreed it! And you can't say there were no other options, clearly there was one...that probably would not have worked. But it was there. Why forbid it?
Ding fucking ding ding. Glad to see someone else share's my ethical perspective on the matter.
I mean, I don't want the child to suffer either, but it boggles my mind that we are OK saying it's fine because hey, the court has decreed it! And you can't say there were no other options, clearly there was one...that probably would not have worked. But it was there. Why forbid it?
Ding fucking ding ding. Glad to see someone else share's my ethical perspective on the matter.
I dont disagree that this is going to have effects on them that will probably last their whole life.
But how can the court take the parents feelings/emotions into consideration in a situation like this?
Surely they cant let the child suffer since its primarily about him and not his parents.
e/ Im not saying the parents fighting and trying everything they could was wrong, I would have probably done the same.
poppabk
Cheeks Spread for Digital Only Future
It can't work - the treatment even if successful against great odds would only repair his mitochondrial defects, meaning his body would be healed and he would remain severely brain damaged and on respirators anyway.
That doesn't discredit one's opinion on the matter.
ugaboga232
Member
The courts already have tons of power. When you are involuntarily held in a psych ward, there is a court that decides if its in your best interest (if you chose to protest). The doctors/hospital were the plaintiffs here, it wasn't just the government assuming direct control.
Poor GRIMES
Banned
So you can't empathize with both parties in this situation? Yes, the child going through that for 10 months is horrible, I agree. But, you also have to take into account the complete anguish that the parents were going through at that time as well. Crossing their fingers for a miracle, for anything to give their son a chance at a regular, happy life. I don't fault them for this. We are human and allowing us to process our emotions is natural, and in instances such as these, it's nigh impossible to imagine the amount of grievances that the parents have to go through for the rest of their lives.
The court made the decision to stop holding the child's life. Parents should not be held to the same pragmatism that the courts are held to. You cannot expect them to willingly analyze every situation rationally when human emotion tends to drive many decisions in a person's life, especially in something like this
children are not your property and the parents are not experts. The state has the moral and legal duty to protect that child just as much as the parents.
terencecah
Member
People who would keep that baby alive don't really know what it's like to try to keep a body alive
It's straight up torture and futile
It's straight up torture and futile
Earthstrike
Member
Don't put words into other people's mouths. We are not saying ok because the court decreed it. We are saying ok because the science backs up the claims. Looks, if we are all gung ho about parental autonomy, what if the parents thought they could cure a child's cancer by sungazing? Should we allow that just because people with poor understandings of science think "there's a chance".
Don't misrepresent arguments. This was a decision rooted in science.
Did I say children are someone's property? And are you are saying the parents do not have the moral and legal duty to protect their child as well? I mean, they are clearly trying to protect their child from their perspective, and yet they are not allowed to do so any further.
What does this even mean? A doctor in the US said there's a chance. That's also science. Science isn't some giant, all-encomposing body in complete agreement on everything always. The "argument from science" makes little sense when you consider science disagrees on lots and lots of things.
If a doctor in the US thinks they could potentially save the child's life, why not? Because some other scientific body says it's not worth bothering or would cause suffering? Are we really so naive to think such things are so obviously set in stone, and if some high court has decided it must be the right call. You are effectively making an argument from authority, which really doesn't hold any water when one considers the unknowable ethics of this kind of situation.
I don't understand these arguments in any way, shape, or form.
At what point would you feel it acceptable for an outside entity to step in and have a say on what a parent is doing to a child? Should the government or outside entities step in when parents refuse life saving treatments for their kids based on religion?
Keep in mind it says in the article this treatment without even a calculated measurement of success and not even tested on live subjects is not meant to fix the childs brain so the child would still be brain dead. What kind of life is that? This is a really tough situation i would never want to be in and I have so much sympathy for those who find themselves in similar situations but compassion comes in many forms and sometimes its not the easiest decision to make.
My bad...I jumped in and didn't take into account the other poster's side. Yes...I do see how they couldn't let go. Which is why I relate to the court siding with not making the kid go through that.
Earthbound64
Banned
Pilgrimzero
Member
In the US the kid would have been long dead because the parents couldn't afford the treatment and hospital stay.
In fact they would to this day still be paying off the debt if it didn't outright bankrupt them.
In fact they would to this day still be paying off the debt if it didn't outright bankrupt them.
Eppy Thatcher
God's had his chance.
I would happily bleed the word dry for my daughter. I absolutely understand their anguish and pain and maybe even their desire to see hope and possibilities where others don't..
but ...
If even for a moment. Even one single moment of her entire (hopefully) long life i ever thought that my actions were causing her pain and misery... if the best possible outcome for her was a still painfully short and tortuous life? I'd let her go. Because I fucking love her too much to let this world do that to her.
What a fucking terrible situation to find yourself in as a parent.
but ...
If even for a moment. Even one single moment of her entire (hopefully) long life i ever thought that my actions were causing her pain and misery... if the best possible outcome for her was a still painfully short and tortuous life? I'd let her go. Because I fucking love her too much to let this world do that to her.
What a fucking terrible situation to find yourself in as a parent.
Zombie James
Banned
Yes? No one's saying it would be easy but no way in hell would I let my kid suffer like that.
No you said are you okay with this being left up to the courts and I'm saying the state/court has the legal and moral duty to that child as it does with all people. If the parents want to do something they don't get the automatic right to do it just because they're his parents. If the medical experts looking after this child have determined that any further action would be pointless (or worse) then the state has the duty to protect him even if that means letting him die. This is an awful situation and it sounds I'm being harsh towards the parents like they're wrong or something but that's not what I'm saying. They're not wrong but that doesn't make them right. I hope that's a bit clearer.
Kadin
Member
I completely agree with you. I'm not a parent but my sister is and I think of her children when stories like this come around and it just tears me up.
But the bigger question is, how would you feel if the choice was not up to you and the doctor's and courts made the decision for you. Would you be able to accept it if you wanted to still try?
Holy hell!
The arrogance of parents in full show. You're not special. Guess what? You don't need to have a kid to experience what it's like to have a loved one suffer and die.
Earthbound64
Banned
Do we know the parents wouldn't have had health insurance?
Especially for mothers and children, Medicaid is definitely an option.
Or was this just you looking to dump on the US?
Generalpsyduck
Banned
No one deserves to live like that. It's disgusting that it took this long, A lot of suffering could have been avoided
Earthstrike
Member
I never asserted science is a giant all-encompassing body that is in complete agreement on everything always. Science however is in complete agreement on some things, presently. Here is what I think is occurring based on the available details. Charlie was born with a mitochondrial issue that affects his brain. The doctor in the U.S. has administered mitochondrial therapies to patients that have similar issues in other tissues. This is what the key distinction would be. Given that the effects of tissue degradation are different in a brain versus other tissues. It's universally known that we cannot presently reverse structural brain damage. To top it off, this is damage that occurred while the brain was developing. Its impact would likely occur at both the micro and macroscopic level. Again, I'm pretty sure this is the case based on the information provided.
Tal Shiar Agent
Member
As the father of two 6 month olds I would never let go. Death is the ultimate enemy that must be conquered by any and all means.
Generalpsyduck
Banned
Even if it meana a lifetime of torture and suffering?
Good luck with that.
Earthbound64
Banned
There's things out there far worse than death. At a certain point, it becomes a mercy. I feel terrible for everyone in this situation.
Yes you see I was somewhat specific with the wording of my question.
What do you think this treatment will do and why should it be carried out.
I want to know what you think you understand of this procedure and ultimately why it trumps the understanding of doctors and medical professionals in the UK.
Joe Condor
Banned
Does quality of life not matter at all to you?
Tal Shiar Agent
Member
^Are any of you actually parents?
If, as in this case, there was an active line of research showing promising results, even pre-animal trials I would want to hold on. That's what my emotions tell me.
Fortunately the courts would stop you.
Fulminator
Member
Honestly they probably made the right decision as awful as it may be
Vincent Grayson
Member
When my oldest had to go to a different hospital because her appendix situation was worse than we initially thought, a lot of things ran through my mind.
While the thought of losing her was absolutely horrifying, the thought of her suffering was worse. I'd like to think that I would retain the clarity of mind necessary to make the right decisions by my children should such an awful scenario ever arise, but I do not begrudge these parents inability to do so.
I cannot think of a situation more difficult to deal with.
edit: and I do agree with the court's decision here. It sounds like the facts are pretty clear that this kid will never, under any circumstances, be a functional human, much less have anything resembling a quality life.
While the thought of losing her was absolutely horrifying, the thought of her suffering was worse. I'd like to think that I would retain the clarity of mind necessary to make the right decisions by my children should such an awful scenario ever arise, but I do not begrudge these parents inability to do so.
I cannot think of a situation more difficult to deal with.
edit: and I do agree with the court's decision here. It sounds like the facts are pretty clear that this kid will never, under any circumstances, be a functional human, much less have anything resembling a quality life.
Except in this case the meds haven't even been tested on mice and would do nothing to fix the issues with the brain.
Skellig Gra
Member
I don't think I could give up on my son in that situation. It would destroy me.
Poor GRIMES
Banned
Are you for real?NoRéN;242213892 said:
Everyone's lost someone dear to them, but under these circumstances? Their child? A person they've been planning to share their lives with until they depart and their child carries on their teachings and legacy? At that at 10 months?
Don't be ridiculous. I'm not a parent myself and I know how shitty that situation is for all involved
Lamel
Banned
In such a situation, I don't fault the parents for being emotional and not looking at it objectively. It's damn near impossible to do so. However, having directly seen people on life support for extended periods of time, it's barely "life". This was ultimately the right call.
But you know they could let it happen in their home, would be a more comforting setting for all involved.
But you know they could let it happen in their home, would be a more comforting setting for all involved.
Kadin
Member
I don't think you want to really know what I think. I'm pretty sure I see what you're trying to get across and honestly I have no desire to go down that discussion path with you. It's clear that no matter what I say, you will just push it aside and say the docs/courts know better. I'll end it right here for ya.
ZombiePlatypus
Member
Horrific situation, but if there really is an experimental procedure overseas, is it not cruel to rob the parents and the child of that chance? I realize there's a line between hope and just stalling, but I can't imagine someone forcing to pull the plug if there's an avenue I haven't yet tried.
BudokaiMR2
Member
Nothing in that article linked is anywhere near as definite and conclusive as the headline suggests. If I'm reading this right even the doctor doing this experimental treatment was surprised at how bad the child's situation is and concedes that the actual specific circumstances would make it difficult for the surgery to take place.
No hospital in the country is going to okay a procedure that hasn't even been tested on mice.
Maybe I'm crazy but I am gonna assume that the UK doctors who are recommending against these actions have a better understanding of the situation than a bunch of people on a video game forum giving their hot takes.
Sir_Crocodile
Member
Is the discussion path you don't want to go down that the judgement was that the brain damage is permanent and this treatment can't repair it?
Otherwise I'm confused.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked