-
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
You're argument is a classic example of an 'appeal to authority'. You state that you possess knowledge and understanding the other person can't have as a parent, and therefore you're opinion is inherently better because of that.
YourMaster
Member
You must have had poor empathy if you gained insight only when you got children yourself. I'm a parent and can confidently say that having a child changes nothing about my ability to empathize with others.
In case that poster does by chance not have children, I'm willing to back his statement if in your mind that makes it carry more weight.
Why not do you one better: "Any true parent would know how to put the needs of the child first. They would know when to let go, instead of torturing the child for their own piece of mind. From personal experience I've felt the heartbreak when my child wanted to drink cleaning agent, but I had to persist in saying 'no' even when he was so disappointed. That's why I can judge the situation with the people in the OP in a way people without children would never understand."
See how that is just as true - and just as ridiculous - as the statements in reverse?
You're leaning on you being a parent as part of your argument, that's what I take issue with.
Netherscourge
Banned
This is where my morality gets all screwed up.
1. We want to give parents, or at least a mother, the right to abort perfectly healthy fetuses, based primarily on the "I control what I do with my own body" argument. Pro-choice. Which, I support btw.
2. We allow a hospital to determine when hope and/or treatment for a terminally ill baby has "expired", even if it's against the wishes of the parents. Despite the fact that not all possible treatments have actually been exhausted. But rather, that all state-approved treatments have been exhausted. Aka, Curriculum Death. They tried everything THEY know, it all failed, so they come to the board-approved conclusion of just letting the baby die.
I just can't line these two things up to achieve a consistent moral view.
(The reason I chose abortion here is because "Choice" is being battled over in courts before a child is born, but after the child is born, we're willing to concede life & death decisions to the state? I agree stuff like vaccines should be mandatory, because it promotes life. But when it comes to pulling the cord and surrendering to death, I don't think the state should have final say. Just my 2 cents.)
1. We want to give parents, or at least a mother, the right to abort perfectly healthy fetuses, based primarily on the "I control what I do with my own body" argument. Pro-choice. Which, I support btw.
2. We allow a hospital to determine when hope and/or treatment for a terminally ill baby has "expired", even if it's against the wishes of the parents. Despite the fact that not all possible treatments have actually been exhausted. But rather, that all state-approved treatments have been exhausted. Aka, Curriculum Death. They tried everything THEY know, it all failed, so they come to the board-approved conclusion of just letting the baby die.
I just can't line these two things up to achieve a consistent moral view.
(The reason I chose abortion here is because "Choice" is being battled over in courts before a child is born, but after the child is born, we're willing to concede life & death decisions to the state? I agree stuff like vaccines should be mandatory, because it promotes life. But when it comes to pulling the cord and surrendering to death, I don't think the state should have final say. Just my 2 cents.)
poppabk
Cheeks Spread for Digital Only Future
All possible treatments have been exhausted though.
YourMaster
Member
I don't see this confusion.
First of all, abortion hinges not on what 'choices' you can make, but on at which point a live becomes intrinsically valuable. Where do cells without rights end, and a human with rights begin.
The answer to that question is simple: There's not a single point but a gradual change. However, since for laws we need a clear yes/no answer we more or less pick the 'viable' point as where we say the fetus counts as human and its rights need to be considered. When it's not a human yet, it doesn't have the same rights as a human and as such it can be terminated if the parents want to.
Now, even for sub-humans, we have limits. Yes, you are allowed to kill a pig for meat, but no you aren't allowed to torture said pig fun.
Further more, adults should have a choice to end there own live, and get assistance from doctors, when they are suffering horribly. If you are in terrible pain, are not able to get any enjoyment or satisfaction from your live because of it, and there's no chance of this getting any better, euthanasia should be an option.
And finally, this baby is born, so we should consider his live, his well being, his outlook in life. As such, the babies parents have a duty to do what's best for that child. From the information provided here, it seems that what's best for this child is euthanasia. To such an extent that it would be massive child abuse when this vital care is withheld from this baby.
When parents are unable or unwilling to provide the necessary care for their child, and the child suffers because of it, people should step in and take over this responsibility from the parents. That's just as true in this case as when it's not feeding a child or sexually abusing a child.
It wouldn't even do that. The guy who is developing the treatment said that at best it would extend the babies lifespan a few months. If it did anything at all, bearing in mind that for Charlie's version of the illness it hasn't even been tested on lab rats yet.
There is no cure for the type of illness Charlie has unfortunately at the moment.
Your 2 cents should have been spent reading the background to the case instead of posting. This isn't 'the state' running out of options. There are no options. This treatment would not cure Charlie, nor would it reverse the damage already done. It would extend the poor mites life a few more months before he died. In the words of the doctor delivering the treatment, to the court.
And don't try and scare people by saying 'the state'. It's the medical professionals at probably the worlds best specialist hospital for children with severe illness. These are people who have dedicated their entire lives to try and help and save children who have the most awful, unimaginable illnesses ever. You demean them and yourself by pretending it's 'the state'. Do you really think the staff at Great Ormond Street do what they do to just give up and try to kill the baby? Do you have any understanding of what they do daily?
s_mirage
Member
It's worth noting that GOSH did work on an application for an ethical exemption to allow the experimental treatment in the UK; they didn't just refuse treatment because it was experimental. However, they abandoned that after Charlie experienced seizures throughout January and it became clear that the level of neurological damage would render any treatment pointless.
Deaf Spacker
Memb
That's not going to help matters.
Phrozenflame500
Member
pfft of course he did
Gordon Shumway
Banned
What a sad story..fuck..
I'm a parent and I don't understand. I would never let my son be tormented just so I can hang on.
Morrigan Stark
Arrogant Smirk
Those situations are not comparable. In the first case, the heart defect was life-threatening, but there was still hope. In the second case, she also had a life-threatening condition, but there was still hope.
Charlie has no hope. His brain cannot be repaired. Border and Helznicht's daughter were threatened with a similar fate, but avoided it; Charlie had no such luck.
Please don't make such invalid comparisons. No court would stop parents from treating their baby if there's still a chance to save them. Here the court intervened because there is no such hope and it needlessly prolongs the baby's suffering.
Bumblebeetuna
Member
Sad story. Better to end the suffering though.
Miles Quaritch
Member
Pro lifer trash has latched onto this, they held a protest in the US.
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/p...f-of-charlie-gard-in-front-of-british-embassy
The parents are really ramping up their attempts to make their baby suffer too. Releasing pictures of his passport, putting a je suis Charlie tag on his arm. A small group (called Charlie's Army) has also been protesting throughout the week, once in front of Buckingham Palace and today they apparently marched on Downing Street.
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/p...f-of-charlie-gard-in-front-of-british-embassy
Sigh.
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/p...f-of-charlie-gard-in-front-of-british-embassy
The parents are really ramping up their attempts to make their baby suffer too. Releasing pictures of his passport, putting a je suis Charlie tag on his arm. A small group (called Charlie's Army) has also been protesting throughout the week, once in front of Buckingham Palace and today they apparently marched on Downing Street.
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/p...f-of-charlie-gard-in-front-of-british-embassy
Sigh.
Vincent Grayson
Member
Anyone happen to remember how long it's been since the Terri Schiavo thing? I can't recall anything more recent that was similarly boneheaded for the pro-life people to jump on.
Masterspeed
Member
Everytime someone buys a newspaper where I work I keep seeing this on the front page.
The photos are so fucking annoying too, it's the 'We're standing above our child looking down and holding each other' type of shit.
They're doing this for publicity, especially when it comes to forming a god damn group about this and giving the child a band.
The photos are so fucking annoying too, it's the 'We're standing above our child looking down and holding each other' type of shit.
They're doing this for publicity, especially when it comes to forming a god damn group about this and giving the child a band.
Well, yeah....I presume they're trying to drum up enough public opinion support to change the minds of the doctors and get Charlie moved elsewhere for other treatment.
The whole situation is just desperately sad, I can't imagine what they're going through. But the last story I read claimed Charlie can't breathe, see, hear or even swallow unaided and I've not read anything to suggest these experimental treatments will do anything to change that. Letting him go seems the most humane thing to do, but fuck me that must be so hard for them to do. Desperately sad for all involved.
Doctor_Thomas
Member
I feel sorry for the parents, I really do, but this is the hallmarks of a desperate family who are completely shielding themselves off from doing what is right by doing what they think is right. They can't let go an the more people that latch on to this, the more it gives them the idea that this is right.
When doctors in the UK are telling you it's time and when the doctors in the US are telling you that the treatment will only help reduce the effects of the condition, because there is no cure, then you have to stop being selfish and realise that it's time to let go, no matter how much is hurts. It's not giving up on him, it's realising that sometimes letting go is the kindest thing.
"Doctors have said he now cannot see, hear, move, cry or swallow and has irreversible brain damage. His lungs are only able to keep going because of the treatment he is receiving."
"The treatment is not a cure - there isn't one - but it has been suggested it could reduce the effects of the disease."
Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-englan...social&ns_campaign=bbcnews&ns_source=facebook
When doctors in the UK are telling you it's time and when the doctors in the US are telling you that the treatment will only help reduce the effects of the condition, because there is no cure, then you have to stop being selfish and realise that it's time to let go, no matter how much is hurts. It's not giving up on him, it's realising that sometimes letting go is the kindest thing.
"Doctors have said he now cannot see, hear, move, cry or swallow and has irreversible brain damage. His lungs are only able to keep going because of the treatment he is receiving."
"The treatment is not a cure - there isn't one - but it has been suggested it could reduce the effects of the disease."
Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-englan...social&ns_campaign=bbcnews&ns_source=facebook
This is the right call. Let the boy go.
The sad thing is, people read the line 'experimental treatment' and imagine some kind of mystery cure that people just didn't bother enough to try.
It's not. The experimental treatment has already been completely shot down as a realistic treatment option for this child.
It would just mean pumping more chemicals into an already nearly lifeless body for actually zero chance of recovery. The damage is long done.
The parents seem stuck on the denial/bargaining stage of grief. Very sad for all involved.
The sad thing is, people read the line 'experimental treatment' and imagine some kind of mystery cure that people just didn't bother enough to try.
It's not. The experimental treatment has already been completely shot down as a realistic treatment option for this child.
It would just mean pumping more chemicals into an already nearly lifeless body for actually zero chance of recovery. The damage is long done.
The parents seem stuck on the denial/bargaining stage of grief. Very sad for all involved.
Familienoberhauptvogel
Banned
the ECHR is transnational and and not part of any government.
So many comments in this thread fucking infuriate me, calling the parents stupid and irresponsible for not wanting their goddamn fucking child to die. Would you, in their position, not want the same thing? Its your child. If theres a way to save them, why not take it? Goddamn, I used to think this community was empathetic, but I was wrong.
there is no chance to save it tho.
There is no way to save the child. The experimental treatment the parents want is not a cure. If it works, it will only lesson the condition, but it will do nothing to reverse the severe brain damage it has already caused.
Not empathetic to not want to child to suffer any more than he has already suffered? What the hell are you on did you even bother to read what has happened to the baby or is it more fun to throw shit at others from your high horse?
It wont cure it, I know, but it will lessen some of the conditions and reduce some of the damage. Theyd have some part of their child back. Are you a parent? If you are, then how can you so easily sit back and say youd be okay watching a child die? If you arent, then you dont really have the experience of being a parent/having a child to comment.
No. Im a parent who wouldnt want my child to die.
Or is that wrong of me to want that?
Except the child has severe brain damage and cannot function at all and will never during his life time live as a normal human being.
Linkstrikesback
Member
You can't be objective and that's the point. No-one wants to see any child die and you're very insulting to insinuate that just because a person doesn't have a child yet, they're incapable of empathy.
They wouldn't have the child back. The child has irreparable brain damage and is a barely functioning husk at this point. It's damned horrible to say that, but it is true. The courts decided letting him continue living in that state is tantamount to enforcing continued suffering and I agree with them. Letting him pass is the humane thing to do, even if it is shitty for the parents.
Your entire argument is framed in a way that it reads to me like any amount of suffering of a child is ok if the parents get something from it, which is a horrifying precedent to suggest
No, I'd want the child to stop suffering.
No child should have to go through any suffering, but no child deserves to be dead either. As a parent myself, I would do whatever I can to keep my child alive. As it has already been stated, the treatment can lessen the severity of the condition. He may still be brain damaged, but hed regain some part of his life. Or are you saying all brain damaged people should die?
No you are a parent who is oblivious to facts and am willing to subject a child who had suffer his whole life to more pain just cos you think you know better than doctors. So don't go around calling people unempathetic.
PingPongvonLaserstein
Member
Except it wouldn't, and they wouldn't. It might briefly prolong how long this poor child can be kept "alive" by machines. It won't affect his lack of brain function. It'll only serve to prolong his suffering, if he can even still experience pain.
I truly feel for his parents. I can't imagine the anguish they must be going through every day. They aren't fighting this fight for their child or his best interests though. This is 100% about them and their feelings.
NoblesseOblige
Banned
Were I living by machines with no independence I would hope someone would do the humane thing and unplug me. That's basically being dead in my book.
Linkstrikesback
Member
There is a point where an adult should be able to make that for themselves. A child can't make that decision and the parents are not considering even slightly what is in the best interests of the child, only themselves. Hence a objective third party stepped in, considered the specifics of the case and concluded that in this case the best course of action is to allow them to pass.
Don't be an idiot suggesting all brain damaged people should die.
As it is, if I ever had serious brain damage and couldn't live without heavy machine assistance and as what is little more than an immobile husk in constant pain (which is what the case is here!), I'd hope if I was in no state to make the decision myself, that the doctors and or courts would do that quickly for me.
Rudimental
Member
You're confused. 'Condition' here means the illness and not the state of the child, i.e. the treatment may reduce or prevent any further negative impact, but it will in no way lead to any recovery from the damage that has already been done.
These are not the only parents who had to turn off life support on a baby. Others of us have had to make that decision, and did.
You don't hear about that in the news, for most of us that is a private tragedy.
This baby, like others, can not be saved, it can not be helped. Every living moment for that little boy is torture. So yes, most of us DO make that decision, because in the end you do what is best for your child. Not because they aren't loved.
Trust me, in the end it will be better for the parents as well once they can move on. they are stuck in a nightmare of no sleep, hardly being able to eat, and spending every waking hour worrying about their child. They are not thinking straight and are mad with grief. I can't really blame them, but there is no hope, no moving forward in this situation.
The lost off a child is a most horrific loss that I wouldn't wish on anyone. But over time, and with help, you can start living a reasonably normal life again. The baby needs to be let go, and the parents need to start their grieving process.
There are worse things than death. Daily suffering being unable to see, hear, move breathe or swallow unaided... I'd say that's probably worse.
The child cannot move, eat or breathe. Are you saying that he isn't suffering enough?
Miles Quaritch
Member
What?
Have you bothered to read up on what his current condition is because it sure as shit doesn't sound like it.
KarneeKarnay
Member
The issue isn't that the parents should have the right to keep their child alive, it's that their child is suffering, there is no hope and doctors have stated that keeping this child alive is only prolonging it's suffering.
In the US if you have the money, the parents could have kept this child alive forever, because as long as you have money there will be doctors willing to test experimental procedures or medicine that could help. Even in this case the American Doctor said that he doesn't see this as working or if it did, doing anything beyond helping with some of the symptoms, but only after the child goes through a very painful procedure.
No disrespect to the US doctors, but the doctors are Great Ormond Street Hospital are widely considered some of the best child/infant doctors and nurses in the whole world.
In the exact same situation, I would most likely be doing the same thing as the parent. I couldn't think rationally, beyond what do I do to keep my child alive? That's why in this case the doctors had a duty of care to present this to parents and eventually to the courts. From the outside I can say I think the right decision was made.
In the US if you have the money, the parents could have kept this child alive forever, because as long as you have money there will be doctors willing to test experimental procedures or medicine that could help. Even in this case the American Doctor said that he doesn't see this as working or if it did, doing anything beyond helping with some of the symptoms, but only after the child goes through a very painful procedure.
No disrespect to the US doctors, but the doctors are Great Ormond Street Hospital are widely considered some of the best child/infant doctors and nurses in the whole world.
In the exact same situation, I would most likely be doing the same thing as the parent. I couldn't think rationally, beyond what do I do to keep my child alive? That's why in this case the doctors had a duty of care to present this to parents and eventually to the courts. From the outside I can say I think the right decision was made.
There's always a doctor in the US willing to use experimental treatment as long as you have the money.
GOSH are phenomenal. My nephew, my friends son and another friends daughter were all treated there (2 x heart conditions and 1 X retinoblastoma which is a rare form of cancer) and all are living perfectly healthy lives now.
the_darkness
Banned
A really disturbing lack of empathy in this thread.
As a parent I would like to think I'd make the decision to let my child move on in peace but I certainly won't begrudge these parents their feelings.
But, that's forums for you I guess.
As a parent I would like to think I'd make the decision to let my child move on in peace but I certainly won't begrudge these parents their feelings.
But, that's forums for you I guess.
Again who is begrudging the parents feelings, most feel for the parents but felt the right decision had to be made. So what does that's forums for you phrase suppose to mean? Or are you too good for forums?
I'd say there's a lot of empathy in this thread, but it's for the baby in perpetual pain with irreversible brain damage, not the people who want to pointlessly prolong his suffering
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked