Deranged mother prolongs son's tortured life


Far be it from me to denigrate another’s psychic abilities, but…

Great galloping gophers, lady, have you not got the sense God gave mashed potatos? Every medical expert has said your son is slowly dying on a ventillator, forty hospitals said that they in no way wish to prolong his suffering, and how do you rebut their arguments?

Get over your Madonna complex, you walking case for involuntary hysterectomies. May you experience the same agony that you impose upon your son.

That poor baby.

As a parent, I can honestly say that I don’t know if I could make the decision to let a child die (God forbid), even if the child had an incurable condition, etc. I won’t fault another parent for the same thing.

OTOH, if she thinks that she communicates with her child telepathically, she’s obviously not all with it. Maybe of strain of having this child in this condition put her in her condition.

Zev Steinhardt

Doesn’t believe in death?
Honestly, it sounds as if the woman’s gone stark raving mad dealing with her son’s pain. Bad situation, but I’m not sure she even understands what she’s doing… I think she’s insane.

Never underestimate a Mother’s love for - or faith in - her child. The fact there’s one (let alone hundreds) of these miracle tales - where a Dr.'s prognosis and advice was incorrect - is probably all this woman needs to turn blind faith into hoping against hope. I’m not saying she’s right - I’m not saying she’s wrong, I just thank my lucky stars I, or anyone else close to me, is in her shoes.

How is that possible?
By which I mean that the Law in Texas is VERY stupid.

This is not about whether or not a hospital is willing to treat him, it’s about whether a hospital SHOULD treat him. The medical profession is supposed to act in the best interests of the patient, and the law should be enforcing that standard of care too.

It is arguably not in his best interests to continue to be ventilated, it is arguably not in his best interests to be agressively treated for any infection. It is arguably not in his best interests to be resuscitated.
40 hospitals agree.
That’s enough.

I feel terrible for the mother, but she’s obviously in denial. The law should not be supporting choices made from that particular emotional place (especially with such a large body of experts arguing against it). In it long term it helps neither her, nor her son. She has no reason to move out of denial if it’s still working, and as long as the courts keep her son ventilated, denial is a good place to be.

End the child’s suffering, help his mother come to terms with her loss: lift the restraining order.

This is a sad situation all around. The mother apparently has serious mental health problems (she spent four days in a psychiatric facility after her son was born), and her defective son is slowly dying. I feel badly that the infant is suffering but the only emotion I can muster here is pity, not anger.

A judge has ruled that the child’s life support can be terminated. The only reason it hasn’t yet is because the case is on appeal.

(emphasis mine)

Okay, when I first read the article it didn’t quite sink in that she was actually psychotic rather than a parent holding out hope against hope that a miracle might somehow happen. If that truly is the case, then let me redirect all my vitriol and anger at the attorney taking her money for not only prolonging the suffering of her infant, but for extending a situation which is arguably detrimental to his client’s mental health! And let me also extend two fingers up (guess which ones) to the 1st Court of Appeals for blindly reinstating the restraining order in the first case. Maybe, just maybe, after smashing your hand 40 times with a hammer, the 41st time won’t hurt. But that’s a faith-based circle-jerk of the highest order.

If she’s so sure of this, then there should be no objection to unhooking the ventilator. Yes?

Er, um…

She just needs to ammend that slightly:

“As long as the Sun is in the sky and hooked up to a ventillator he will live. I don’t believe in death.”

There, now she’s sane.

This quote may be confusing because the mother may be conflating her son with that great ball of burning hydrogen in the sky:

Hate to stomp on a Pitting, but I really don’t think there’s anything to Pit here. The mom is crazy, the hosipital hired her an attorney because of it, and the courts are trying to be as expedient as possible.

When an appeal is accepted (or is a matter of right), and a temporary restraining order or injunction is in place to prevent irreversible action (e.g., cutting down a historic tree which is a matter of dispute, letting a person on life support die), the temporary order is continued until a decision is reached. Yeah, in this case it’s probably an open-and-shut “the child should be allowed to die” situation – but the entire point to such orders is to make the court’s decision meaningful, rather than saying, “Well, as a matter of law, defendant should not have chopped down the tree, but it’s too late to do anything about it now.”

Not a big huhu, and something of a nitpick to your point, but worth taking into account. I agree that any sane person would be in favor of allowing a death with dignity here – but don’t prejudge the Appeals Court; their continuing the restraining order was so that they could decide if there is any merit to the appeal to keep the child on a respirator; keeping him on it until they have a chance to decide is sensible.

I keep thinking of some Catch-22 like position here on the hospital’s part. If the law is that if you must treat if any other hospital would too…well, yeah–any hospital is REQUIRED by law to take in someone in severe respiratory distress.
So, in a way, the hospital would have no case, right? Am I misreading the statute as presented by the article?

I realize that this assumes that the baby would be stable enough to be transferred–but seriously, if this is what the law states–it’s a poorly written law.
Believe me, I have seen enough pain and suffering to be enraged by this situation. This is not a loving act, by any means. And how is this woman able to be the decision maker, if she is officially diagnosed psycbotic? The court should have designated either another family member or a court-appointed guardian to ensure the best interests of the child.

Hint: the best interests does not always mean life.

I’d say Terry Shiavo’s parents and supporters don’t think this lady is insane, batty wording of her comments notwithstanding…

And what does it matter what they think? They’re not even in the same State, are they? Besides, I was under the impression that Terri can’t even feel pain anymore, her brain is too dead. I think this baby is still capable of feeling pain.

It’s a scary world when people who think they have psychic powers, that their child is the physical embodiment of the Sun, and who get committed to mental institutions, are entrusted with making medical decisions that affect the suffering of other human beings.

I just hope this poor kid is doped up enough.

Prediction: The baby dies and the mother sues the hospital. Anybody got $5?

  1. The Mom’s not batty necessarily. I read her words as meant to be poetic, not entirely literal.

  2. I don’t see why 40 hospitals not wanting to take the kid should be the determining factor for taking him off life support. What hospital administrator in their right mind would want to get involved in this mess? Their reticence doesn’t mean the case is definitely hopeless.

  3. On the other hand the case is definitely hopeless

That’s not what the parents claim, AFAIK. Which was the parallel I was sort of drawing, here. It seems that the reaction between these two cases are, or have the potential to be, entirely different, and I was musing on how the supporters of one would think of the other, and vice versa.