http://news.aol.com/topnews/articles/_a/hospital-wants-to-end-childs-life/20070409230109990001
A heartbreaking case. It looks to me like the hospital is acting appropriately, under the circumstances. They deny that money is an issue, which I’d like to believe (but I’m a little too cynical about American healthcare today, I suppose). What do you think about this case?
These cases are hardest in marginal cases. This case isn’t marginal. Sadly, this child will die very soon even if heroic measures are taken.
The Terri Schiavo case taught me that family members are very bad at judging the reality of the terminally ill. I feel sorry for the family, but I have difficulty reconciling the hospital’s claim that Emilio can’t move with the family’s claim that he smiles and turns his head. Both can’t be true, and I don’t believe that a hospital would contemplate removing life support from any patient who showed the degree of responsiveness that the family claims he does. Seems to me that the family’s just not yet ready to let go.
I think that for the mother’s health, it’s time to let go. She’s already experiencing breaks with reality, claiming that his reflexive movements are “responsive” signs. It’s never going to be enough time for her.
While money SHOULDN’T be the base of such decisions, and I don’t think it’s the base of the hospitals decision (they’ll get Medicaid money for however long they like) it is part of legislator’s concerns, and I’m sure it’s part of the reason for the law in the first place.
Ethically, they have to do things to him that cause pain just to keep him alive, and with no chance of him ever getting better, and that isn’t right.
Religiously, God will take care of him, breathing machine or no. If he’s “meant” to die, he will, and if he isn’t, he’ll be one of those stunning miracles who breathes without the machine against all medical expectations.
Medically (for Mom and for him), monetarily, ethically and religiously, I think they’re making the right choice. I just hope Mom gets the psychological counseling and help she needs to come to terms with her child’s death.
It’s too bad they can’t do something to make it more quick and painless. It’s stupid that they can withdraw life support but that they can’t dose the kid up with morphine or something.
I feel sorry for the mom, but I think she’s letting emotion override her reason. She’s not helping this baby by keeping it alive.
I agree that it’s time to let go, as painful as that is. But fercrissakes…they should be able to dope him up so it’s not horrific. What the fuck is wrong with our system?
The families attorney making that claim, and its in his interest to make the proceedure sound as horrific as possible so I’d take it with a grain of salt. My understanding is that the hospital can’t administer medications that will actually kill the child, but I don’t think its correct that they can’t dope him up to ease his pain (though it sorta sounds like he’s beyond being aware pain in anycase).
Unfortunately, that’s exactly like the Schiavo case all over again. I’m trying not to think of this case in terms of that one - I hope it’s not as bitter.
No, it’s not. In Terri Shaivo’s case, the legal guardian entrusted with making medical decisions for her wanted her taken off life support. In this case, the legal guardian wants him left on life support, and the hospital wants to pull the plug. This is a much, much murkier legal situation. Funny how all those fundies screaming about the sanctity of life and activist judges and threatening to break police lines to take Terri a drink of water are silent now. Can’t imagine why. What’d you say the kid’s name was again? Oh, now I get it…
What’s even more interesting is that the Texas law which allows the hospital to do this was signed by none other than George W. Bush. If they call the law evil, they’re calling their hero evil too. The cognitive dissonance on this one just makes it too unberable for them to take a position on it.
George Bush wrote the original bill, voted on it in committee, put it on the floor of both houses of the state legislature, and voted for it all by himself before signing it into law? Wow, I knew there was something odd about Texas!
On a serious note, with the standard disclaimer that I’m not a doctor, isn’t it possible that the pain-killing medication might interfere with the other medication that’s meant to prolong the child’s life?
I made the mistake of reading the user comments on the article…yeesh, some people just have no freakin’ clue about anything. The worst are the ones claiming about how God “wants” the child to live, and they are breaking God’s will by “killing” the child, and yet…wasn’t it God, in theory anyway, who gave this child the horrible disease that, if left untreated, would kill him? So, aren’t they violating God’s will by keeping the child alive? I never payed much attention to the Shivo case, so I don’t know what the common response was to that line of reasoning. I imagine that in that particular case, one could argue that, since the condition Terry was in was brought about by her own actions, that all effort should have been made to keep her alive. In this case, though, the condition seems genetic, so the child was “meant” to have it, as it were, and therefore meant to die. It really does that simple to me, at least in terms of how a hypothetical God might see it.
As an aside, I don’t know anything about Leigh’s disease (what the child is suspected to have,) but if there’s the chance that the organs of the child are still viable, then maybe a small amount of good can come from a bad situation. Maybe that was God’s will. He put this child on the earth merely to die and supply organs for other children so that they may live.
I was referring to the ‘family members in denial’ part, as the mother seems to be.
In the past few weeks my family has dealt with a *similar *situation, but with my 79 year old grandmother.
She had a few health problems that got out of hand and weren’t properly treated over the years. In the end, she had multiple organs failing. Some could’ve been treated but with the rest of problems, it was a futile situation. She was on life support - barely able to breathe and not able to eat on her own. She was responsive… for a little while. For the most part - they had her drugged up on Morphine. She was also on Medicaid.
It was hard to see her suffering and living so… lifeless. It was exhausting to go to the hospital knowing that it might be the last time I saw her alive. That was much more painful than her actual death. My family was fortunate to have the opportunity to tell her that we love her and to say our final goodbyes. She was taken off the ventilator on April 1st. About 45 minutes later, she breathed he last breath. No more pain. No more suffering.
Over all the way I look at it is…
Death is something we all have to face. Some sooner than others. In these situations, most people do not think rationally. Prolonging the pain and suffering of another person because we don’t want to deal with the loss is selfish. If machines are the only thing keeping a person alive, what kind of life is that? At some point you have to think of the quality of life of the person and as hard as it is, you have to let go.
And yes… I know, everything is different when it’s a baby…
I thought this was the case, from my recollections of a baby in Texas that got a minuscule amount of attention in the middle of the Terri Shiavo fiasco. However, I remember that the law Bush signed allowed for a hospital to take someone off life support for financial reasons; I wasn’t sure if it was the same law the hospital is using in this case, since they state that money is not the issue, but the suffering of the patient in this case (of course, a smart hospital would always cite “suffering of the patient” rather than “bottom line” issues). I did not wish to misstate by citing the Bush law if it did not apply. I agree that is a very interesting twist.
I don’t think that can happen. Actually, I’m sure.
AFAIK, Leigh’s Disease affects every cell in the body (due to a gene mutation in the mitochodria - the cell’s energy production factories). The brain gets affected earliest since it’s the most dependent on getting a continuous supply of energy. But other organs are not spared. Bottom line is that they wouldn’t be acceptable for transplantation.
Thanks for the info. That’s too bad, really. but my original point still stands, that if there is a God, then it would seem it was his will for the baby to die. Sad? Of course it is, and I don’t want to come off sounding like some emotionless freak while shouting “kill the child!” But obviously at some point there has to come a time when the mother realizes that she is only keeping her son alive for her sake, not his, and in doing so, is actually hurting him.
A probate judge has now ordered a stay, and scheduled a hearing: http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/04/10/baby.care.ap/index.html
Why shouldn’t money be an issue? Keeping someone on life support has to be enormously expensive, and just because Medicaid is paying for it doesn’t mean it’s free. There is a finite amount of money in any account, and the money being spent on Emilio is money that won’t be going elsewhere.
This may sound hard-hearted, but at some point money does come into it. Would it be OK if it cost $100,000 a year to keep Emilio alive. How about $1,000,000? How about $100,000,000?
So I say kill the little sonofabitch and spend the money on roads.
OK, that was completely inappropriate, and I feel just terrible about it. I apologize to anyone who may have been offended.
The mother should let go. Let this suffering young one go.