Fierce_LiNk Posted March 22, 2009 Share Posted March 22, 2009 After scrolling through the BBC website, I did find this very interesting news piece which I thought would spark some good discussion. ~ ~ ~ Baby in right-to-life battle dies A seriously ill baby, whose parents lost a court battle to keep him alive on a ventilator, has died. The nine-month-old, known as "Baby OT", had a rare metabolic disorder and had brain damage and respiratory failure. His parents had appealed against a ruling at London's High Court that it was in the boy's best interests to withdraw "life-sustaining treatment". The British Medical Association (BMA) supported the doctors' actions, as did some Christian groups. Baby OT was unable to breathe by himself and died at 1008 GMT after doctors withdrew his treatment. His parents said they were "deeply distressed" by the decision and said the life of their "beautiful boy" was worth preserving. The couple said through their solicitor after the death was announced: "During his short time with us, OT became the focus of our lives. We were present during his last moments, together with [his] extended family. "He died peacefully. We will miss him greatly and wish to say that we are proud to have known our beautiful son for his brief life." Doctors treating him had said the boy's life was intolerable and his disability was such that his life had little purpose. However his parents argued before he died "he experiences pleasure and that he has long periods where he was relaxed and pain free". Source: BBC News ~ ~ ~ I thought it was a very interesting piece, considering how the choices of the parents were over-ruled. I'll give my input on it later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EEVILMURRAY Posted March 22, 2009 Share Posted March 22, 2009 Whether I agree with what I'm about to say in this instance I'm not sure, but it does seem a lil fruitless to keep someone alive if there's no chance of a proper living. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paj! Posted March 22, 2009 Share Posted March 22, 2009 How long had he been on support/a ventilator, before the plug was pulled? And was there ANY hope of him coming out of it alive/being able to live some kind of life? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoadKill Posted March 22, 2009 Share Posted March 22, 2009 How long had he been on support/a ventilator, before the plug was pulled? And was there ANY hope of him coming out of it alive/being able to live some kind of life? He can't breathe by himself and has severe brain damage. It would be utterly useless to keep him alive and achieve only suffering Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paj! Posted March 23, 2009 Share Posted March 23, 2009 Well then I suppose it's alright to "pull the plug", so to speak. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Letty Posted March 23, 2009 Share Posted March 23, 2009 Afaik aswell as not being able to breathe, he was also in constant excruciating pain. Bummer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jordan Posted March 23, 2009 Share Posted March 23, 2009 This reminds me of that case of that kid in America who was born without a brain. Her stupid mother kept her alive despite her only having motor actions. She also thought that god would give her child a brain. Some people are pretty damn messed up. The fact is, even up to 4 decades ago if these people were born they would simply die shortly after birth. Modern medicine has removed natural selection from our society... My point is, if the child can be saved and given a decent standard of life or a life of pain, do it. If its the wish of a "selfish" parent, doctors should be allowed to let the child die. But I admit its a very morally grey area. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DuD Posted March 23, 2009 Share Posted March 23, 2009 I couldn't agree more with the whole of Jordan's post. It says it all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan_Dare Posted March 23, 2009 Share Posted March 23, 2009 to be fair, if it wasn't for modern medicine, I'd have died when I was born. My case was far less extreme though, and a line has to be drawn. Clearly, baby OT was far beyond that line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jordan Posted March 23, 2009 Share Posted March 23, 2009 to be fair, if it wasn't for modern medicine, I'd have died when I was born. My case was far less extreme though, and a line has to be drawn. Clearly, baby OT was far beyond that line. Yeah, i too had surgery when i was born to correct an issue. But nothing too extreme. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EEVILMURRAY Posted March 23, 2009 Share Posted March 23, 2009 This reminds me of that case of that kid in America who was born without a brain. Her stupid mother kept her alive despite her only having motor actions. She also thought that god would give her child a brain. Some people are pretty damn messed up. How so? I mean with the motor actions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goafer Posted March 23, 2009 Share Posted March 23, 2009 The thought of a baby with no brain moving without any sort of control just freaks me out. A lot. Especially if it was moving all slow and junk. I may not sleep tonight. "he experiences pleasure and that he has long periods where he was relaxed and pain free". Is it me or is that sentance wrong? Not trying to be a grammar nazi, but it confuses me. And on topic: A line does have to be drawn somewhere. It doesn't seem fair to keep OT alive. Although if I were in the parents situation I don't know if I'd be as logical as I am now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirkatronics Posted March 23, 2009 Share Posted March 23, 2009 to be fair, if it wasn't for modern medicine, I'd have died when I was born. My case was far less extreme though, and a line has to be drawn. Clearly, baby OT was far beyond that line. Yea, i was born premeturely, so i would have died too. This is a lot worse, they have to right to make a living thing suffer. Then again, who has the right to decide who lives ad who dies? I believe they made the best decision, especially since all they would know is horrible pain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris the great Posted March 23, 2009 Share Posted March 23, 2009 well, i have read about cases of people coming back from unbelivable comas and what have you, but keeping a hugly damaged individual alive seems selfish of the parents. being in so much pain, it seems a hellish existance, especialy for a baby. i dont have a problem with life support if theres a chance of survival, but when all it does is keep the brai dead in going, whats the point? give the family a chance to say good bye, then let them go. its akin to stuffing the body, every thing you are is in your brain, if thats dead, your dead. all thats left is an empty shell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jordan Posted March 23, 2009 Share Posted March 23, 2009 How so? I mean with the motor actions. Basically, if a person doesn't have a brain or if you get severe brain damage, nerves in the top of your spine take over. Or something along those lines. "he experiences pleasure and that he has long periods where he was relaxed and pain free". Is it me or is that sentance wrong? Not trying to be a grammar nazi, but it confuses me. Yeah, the sentence is totally fucked. Blame the time it was posted... >_> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paj! Posted March 23, 2009 Share Posted March 23, 2009 My heart stopped beating in the womb. So I (and also my mum, at this point) would most likely have died. But a caesarean and a brief bout of modern magical medicine saved us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weeyellowbloke Posted March 23, 2009 Share Posted March 23, 2009 There isn't anyway that this was the wrong decision in my opinion. There appears that there was absolutely no chance of this baby would grow up to have anywhere near a normal life and probably would have struggled to live that long despite medical help. A line definately has to be drawn. Modern medicine can keep people alive in extraordinary conditions, but that doesn't mean people should be kept alive no matter what. Thought needs to go into quality of life and whether there is any long term hope of recovery, otherwise you're just taking up hospital resources that could be better used elsewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluey Posted March 23, 2009 Share Posted March 23, 2009 My heart stopped beating in the womb. So I (and also my mum, at this point) would most likely have died. But a cesarean and a brief bout of modern magical medicine saved us. jeeze you ARE lazy ------ yeah, as sad as it is, their baby was pretty much still-born ~ i'm sure the court case and fighting is kind of a welcome distraction for the parents at the moment, the doctors have just forced them to wake up and deal with the fact that their baby wouldnt survive by stopping treatment Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jav_NE Posted March 23, 2009 Share Posted March 23, 2009 Every case is unique, so its hard to say whether you believe in the ethics of 'pulling the plug' or not. I'd say, in this case, it was the right thing to do. The parents seem to have closure as well, even though they are sad now. It all depends on the possibility of a sustainable life and amount of suffering involved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shorty Posted March 23, 2009 Share Posted March 23, 2009 I think in this case the parents just couldn't let go. And how could you? It would be hard to make such an absolute decision. Maybe they knew fighting the courts was a waste of time, and they knew how the outcome would be, and they knew that this way they would have fought for their child's life and ultimately had the decision to end his life taken out of their hands. Their decision to keep him alive was probably a mistake, but it's the kind of mistake I would make too. How do you make a choice like that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EEVILMURRAY Posted March 23, 2009 Share Posted March 23, 2009 Basically, if a person doesn't have a brain or if you get severe brain damage, nerves in the top of your spine take over. Or something along those lines. So you kinda lose the ability to learn stuff? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The fish Posted March 23, 2009 Share Posted March 23, 2009 I think the doctors made the right decision. As hard as it is for the parents, the time, skill and resources needed to keep the child alive could be used to much greater effect elsewhere. He was, essentially, already dead, as it was only through modern medicine that he could be kept alive. The shear amount of resources needed to keep him alive, when compared to what is gained, is simply too unfair on those who would benefit more from the resources. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimbob Posted March 23, 2009 Share Posted March 23, 2009 To be fair at first i agreed with the parents but after reading the whole article i now agree with the Doctors to be fair. If someone who is on life support has a chance of leading a normal life as it were once making a full recovery then keep them on support but if someone, like OT has zero chance of leading a normal life or recovering then its a waste of resources that could be used on someone who can make a full recovery to be fair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan_Dare Posted March 23, 2009 Share Posted March 23, 2009 It's not a matter of wasted resources to me- it's simply that, beyond a certain point, death is a mercy. Sad but true. Personally, I'd want it known that if I ever ended up permanently reliant on machines for life, I would want to die. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ganepark32 Posted March 23, 2009 Share Posted March 23, 2009 I was going to post a reply to this this morning but after reading a bit of the news story I was pretty angry at the arrogance of the doctors. So now that I've cooled down I'll post what I was going to in the first place. I think it's a bit disgusting that the life of a person, be it child, adult or elderly person, can be decided upon by a bunch of wig wearing pricks in London. Does no one else find it a bit disturbing that these are the people who would be passing judgment on whether or not we should be allowed to live on with the aid of a machine if, god forbid, any of use every have anything happen to us that would put us in that state? I do. Why the hell should a court of law decide on this kind of thing? Surely this shouldn't fall to the British courts to settle because it's always going to go one way. Now I'm not saying that Baby OT here should have been kept on machines because looking at the scientific evidence, there was very little chance the kid would pull through what with brain damage and respiratory problems, and in circumstances like this, then the plug should be pulled. But I've heard of cases where people are being kept alive on machines and are showing improvement and look to be improving but because it's taking too long, the machines are switched off because the doctors and the court don't see the patient as getting better. This kind of thing is all to common and really, it should be kept as far away from the British Courts as possible because it's not necessary to take it there. The government needs to sort this out and have specific courts that can deal with these medical issues and not shove it in the High Court. This sentence really annoyed me the most about this case: 'Doctors treating him had said the boy's life was intolerable and his disability was such that his life had little purpose.' The bolded bit is the most appauling thing I've ever seen a doctor say. Who the hell are they to say his life has little purpose? It just bloody annoys me that kind of arrogance about how frivolous a life can be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts