Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: aldo_14 on October 18, 2006, 04:44:55 am
-
http://www.newscientist.com/blog/shortsharpscience/2006/10/what-price-life.html
British newspapers have been gripped these past couple of days by the story of a severely disabled girl, who will be 3 years old on Saturday.
Charlotte Wyatt, who has serious brain, lung and kidney damage, weighed only 1 pound and measured just 5 inches when she was born three months prematurely on October 14, 2003. The child hit the headlines soon after birth as her parents battled in the courts to force doctors – against their medical judgement – to provide artificial ventilation if her condition worsened.
Her parents won the year-long legal dispute, which cost the taxpayer an estimated £500,000 ($929,000). In addition, the girl’s medical treatment costs around £300 a day, and has totalled an estimated £1.1 million so far.
Against all the odds, little Charlotte has made it to three and is well enough to leave hospital and live at home for the first time. Doctors are also now measuring her life expectancy in terms of years rather than months. But here follows the bitter irony: she has no home to go to.
Charlotte’s parents have separated and both say they cannot care for her and want foster parents to look after her. Both parents live on state benefits and have been described by hospital sources as infrequent visitors to the hospital that their daughter has never left.
The child needs oxygen breathing machinery and nasal gastric feeding equipment, plus spare equipment if either broke down, according to reports.
The strain of having a profoundly sick child must have been terrible, especially since the parents involved have other children to care for too, so it is perhaps not surprising that they have arrived at this tragic situation, and I really feel for them.
But it does raise the issue: should the courts have found in the doctors’ favour and allowed them to determine whether to allow the infant to die; or should life be protected at all costs?
I certainly don’t have the answer, but I’d be interested to hear your views.
-
Life at all costs. **** the rules of the game.
-
I'd be interested to see what the girl says (assuming she can talk?) when she grows up enough to understand what has happened.
-
I'd be interested to see what the girl says (assuming she can talk?) when she grows up enough to understand what has happened.
According to the original DNR court judgement from 2004 (http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2004/2247.html) "Charlotte has chronic respiratory and kidney problems coupled with the most profound brain damage that has left her blind, deaf and incapable of voluntary movement or response...The permanent damage to the brain is certain and irreversible. According to the medical evidence, Charlotte demonstrably experiences pain; whether she can experience pleasure, no doctor knows though most doubt it. ".
So I wouldn't hold your breath.
(EDIT; note - the Wikipedia article states she can see and hear, but that's seemingly based solely upon the parents opinion. The newest BBc article says 'limited sight and vision' with no medical details. As we saw with the Schiavo case and subsequent autopsy, it's very easy to see something that's not there, and profound and irrevesible brain damage seems a pretty clear medical opinion to me)
-
How sad! :(
Those parents want locking up, life at all costs? Even if the cost is a life of suffering and pain?
I'm at a loss as to what to say, it's just so tragic! :(
-
I kniow it sounds hard, but if its easier for the kid than a like of constant hurt and uncertainty, (also the fact the parents would rather Fob her off to the fostering system, Thats gotta hurt you emotionally later on.......) I say Euthanise. :(
-
I kniow it sounds hard, but if its easier for the kid than a like of constant hurt and uncertainty, (also the fact the parents would rather Fob her off to the fostering system, Thats gotta hurt you emotionally later on.......) I say Euthanise. :(
The thing was, it was never even a question of euthanasia; it was essentially the doctors saying 'look, we don't want to be forced to put this kid through tremendous pain and suffering if she deteriorates further and we need to use increasinly invasive treatment'.
-
I kniow it sounds hard, but if its easier for the kid than a like of constant hurt and uncertainty, (also the fact the parents would rather Fob her off to the fostering system, Thats gotta hurt you emotionally later on.......) I say Euthanise. :(
Hard? Letting the kid die is the ethical, merciful and right thing to do. Instead, she's become an unloved burden upon the state that naturally should have died long ago, seemingly living in a world of perpetual pain that won't end.
The child will die, there's no question of 'if', only 'when'. For fighting to keep the kid alive against all better judgement, the parents should be held liable for the intense suffering such a poor being must have endured in these past three years.
-
Thats my opinion, At the time if my daughter
has serious brain, lung and kidney damage, weighed only 1 pound and measured just 5 inches when she was born three months prematurely
I'd prepare for the worst and look at what was best overall.
I kniow it sounds hard, but if its easier for the kid than a like of constant hurt and uncertainty, (also the fact the parents would rather Fob her off to the fostering system, Thats gotta hurt you emotionally later on.......) I say Euthanise. :(
Hard? Letting the kid die is the ethical, merciful and right thing to do. Instead, she's become an unloved burden upon the state that naturally should have died long ago, seemingly living in a world of perpetual pain that won't end.
How many kids you got, Doesnt matter if its ethical, You still love the little sprogs unconditionally......... :(
-
How many kids you got, Doesnt matter if its ethical, You still love the little sprogs unconditionally......... :(
I think that's the point; they needed to let go and realise that, for all their desire, they were putting that poor baby through a literal living hell. I can only guess it was hard for a highly religious (apparently) parents to recognise that God, fate, whatever, had screwed them over.
-
How many kids you got, Doesnt matter if its ethical, You still love the little sprogs unconditionally......... :(
Can't say that I have any kids. But if I ever do, and I have a child as ill as this girl, it would be an expression of my love for her to give her respite from a literal living purgatory.
-
D'uh thats my point........ :rolleyes:
-
Hmm, got the impression you were siding with the parents. Ah well, glad we agree. :)
-
Same here, I cant abide neglect.
-
I would say this issue is the other side of the spectrum; steming from overprotectiveness rather than any form of neglect.
-
I'm stepping out of this new line of convo.......
-
Great. Now, here I am by myself, talking to myself. That's Chaos Theory.
-
OK, i cant abide neglect.....Seeing you here talking to yourself is a bit nuts.
Overprotectiveness and empathy/guilt/sympathy. . . Its all shades of grey, I dont want to think about if my girl ever got ill like that, Obviously i've shot sick dogs before but they're only dogs- My own blood is a different matter, I know it'd be humane, but it would kill me as well.....
-
Charlotte’s parents have separated and both say they cannot care for her and want foster parents to look after her. Both parents live on state benefits and have been described by hospital sources as infrequent visitors to the hospital that their daughter has never left.
I'd call that neglect! This child needs all the love she can get at the moment, and they can't be arsed even visiting her!
-
Charlotte’s parents have separated and both say they cannot care for her and want foster parents to look after her. Both parents live on state benefits and have been described by hospital sources as infrequent visitors to the hospital that their daughter has never left.
I'd call that neglect! This child needs all the love she can get at the moment, and they can't be arsed even visiting her!
Apparently the Dad has been hospitalized for a drug overdose, too.
-
Pffft!, how can trailer trash like this get a court ruling in their favour!!! What is wrong the court system these days!!! :hopping: :mad: :no:
-
Tragedy.
What more, I think the parents were in fact thinking more of themselves than their child when they wanted to keep her alive in these conditions.
After all, people who are sad after they lost a loved one are not sad for the dead; they are sad for themselves because they have to live on without their loved one. It's not like the dead suffer any more, it's the living missing the dead that causes death to be seen as a bad thing in many cases. But it's not... it's neutral, and natural part of life.
If I ever end up getting a child this badly disabled that he or she will never ever have normal life without constant agony, I would also - for the child's sake - not force him or her go through it. Everyone dies anyway, and this poor kid will probably pass away before her parents, without ever experiencing anything but pain, more pain, and then death (whatever it involves). It truly would've been better not ot have three years (and counting) of pain, without much anything else. The parents will still have to deal with the pain of losing their daughter some day - I think that much is obvious. But since they couldn't face the truth and wanted to spare themselves from losing their child, they pressed the matter, doomed their child to constant pain, probably caused the destruction of the family and so forth.
At least if they simply had lost the baby, they would've had each other to get support from. Now, after three years, they have split up and at least the father is not doing so well, don't know about the mother though. In the end, fear of loss caused much more harm than the loss in itself.
Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.
The parents were afraid of losing their child, despite the obvious fact that death would've been better solution than living in pain. That led to them getting angry, and eventually they split up. This all resulted in suffering of the child, mother and father. Way to go... :( :blah:
-
What plagues me is.. is a life such as this really a life?
I know the immediate answer is "yes", everyone has a right to a shot at life and so on... but given the girls condition she must be going through an unspeakable amount of suffering that doesn't look like it's going to get any more pleasent for her as time goes by. Were I stuck in a form of conciousness that was aware of itself but was locked in her condition, I'm fairly sure I'd rather have an end and release to that suffering rather than endure it.. and what else can she really do but endure it? She's not going anywhere.. she can't see or hear or respond to stimulus...
...which brings me back to my original question. Is she really alive? Is that a life any of you would wish on someone? She has nothing to look forward to, perhaps the kind thing is indeed to - for want of better (or kinder) words - put her out of her misery.
-
It is life, yes, but not human life (as in including social interaction as well as vital functions.)
-
This is descending into a state of definitions/opinions on things which is gonna skew off, But i'll fuel it anyway.........
Life such as this poor souls, can be called an existence, fleeting as it may have been, would you call it a "Life" in the sense taken above in that she would be able to cycle in the summer, go swimming. Simple things like walk the dog and apologise for it doing mess in a eighbours garden. Stupid things we take for granted she may not even have the option.........
-
I'd like to try and avoid the whole "definitions" part if we can help it.. it'll get nowhere.
But rather address the question - and there's no "good" way to put this - is it right to keep the girl alive? Is it of benefit to her or those responsible for her? Would it infact be cruel to keep her alive, given whatever pain she may feel?
-
Great. Now, here I am by myself, talking to myself. That's Chaos Theory.
That's existentialism at its finest.
On topic: I don't see the reason in keeping such a person alive. We tend to be trapped by the tempting idea that "human life" has an irremovable essence, but nothing has an irremovable essence. Everything that gives us cause to view the human experience as sacred has been taken from her.
-
Her pain doesn't enter the equation.
A lot of people are in all sorts of pain. A lot of them live.
Fact is, unless she tells you she wants out, it's not your call to pull the plug. If she can't tell you, too bad. Default is to preserve life, and nothing anyone says or observes matters, at all. Second hand empathy and observation is mastrubation.
People need to learn that their opinions mean absolutely nothing in more cases than they care to admit. This being one of them.
-
Her pain doesn't enter the equation.
A lot of people are in all sorts of pain. A lot of them live.
Fact is, unless she tells you she wants out, it's not your call to pull the plug. If she can't tell you, too bad. Default is to preserve life, and nothing anyone says or observes matters, at all. Second hand empathy and observation is mastrubation.
People need to learn that their opinions mean absolutely nothing in more cases than they care to admit. This being one of them.
I don't see the point in letting the poor kid suffer. If she can't talk, can't see, can't hear, can't experience the JOY of living, then why bother keeping her alive? Why prolong that suffering? In my mind, that's just cruelty, especially given this situation where she feels constant pain.
As horrible as this may sound, the fact is that her existance is a burden in many ways, and apparently, a benfit to no one, especially herself. To keep her alive is extremely costly, there is no hope of any sort of repair or recovery, and it looks like the parents don't even want her. We're not talking about hopping on over and taking out a perfectly healthy kid, but giving this girl gentle way out of a perpetual, painful, and ultimately meaningless existence.
-
yeah, with parents like that, she's probably better off with a painless morphine overdose.
its ok, there's really no such thing as original sin, they just made that up to scare ppl.
-
Lifelong suffering and pain as for birthright...
This kind of decisions should be left to professionals. Unlike the parents, they have at least a chance of knowing what they are doing.
-
Her pain doesn't enter the equation.
A lot of people are in all sorts of pain. A lot of them live.
Fact is, unless she tells you she wants out, it's not your call to pull the plug. If she can't tell you, too bad. Default is to preserve life, and nothing anyone says or observes matters, at all. Second hand empathy and observation is mastrubation.
People need to learn that their opinions mean absolutely nothing in more cases than they care to admit. This being one of them.
I don't see the point in letting the poor kid suffer. If she can't talk, can't see, can't hear, can't experience the JOY of living, then why bother keeping her alive? Why prolong that suffering? In my mind, that's just cruelty, especially given this situation where she feels constant pain.
As horrible as this may sound, the fact is that her existance is a burden in many ways, and apparently, a benfit to no one, especially herself. To keep her alive is extremely costly, there is no hope of any sort of repair or recovery, and it looks like the parents don't even want her. We're not talking about hopping on over and taking out a perfectly healthy kid, but giving this girl gentle way out of a perpetual, painful, and ultimately meaningless existence.
It's so good we have all of you people to define what the JOY of living is, especially when you get to do so for others, and even more so in a situation that doesn't even concern you subjectively one bit.
Just because her existence is meaningless to you, that doesn't necessarily mean she feels the same way.
I'll re-state.
Your opinion on life, and any judgment you may be willing to pass over another human being's life without their direct consent does not matter.
-
Your opinion on life, and any judgment you may be willing to pass over another human being's life without their direct consent does not matter.
And whose opinion matters then? Your opinion that the default is to keep everyone alive?
The trouble is, that this girl herself most likely has no way of communicating with outside world. It's even possible that she doesn't have anything to communicate, that her existence consists solely of pain. She has no conscious body movement, her sight and hearing are impared. Thus I doubt that she has ever learned to, for example, understand speech and develop the skill of abstract thinking.
Obviously, we can't just ask her whether or not she has something to live for. Personally I doubt it. Her parents were of different opinion and wanted to keep her alive, and so she was kept alive.
But like you say, neither their or mine or anyone else's opinion is the only right one. The right opinion would be what she wants, but as shown, it's impossible to know what she would want, if she has somehow managed to develope any kind of sentient awareness and abstract thought.
So it is up to other people to decide what's best for her. Normally it's up to parents to decide that, but in cases where parents' decisions cause suffering to child/ren, it is normal to intervene and prevent further suffering. Granted, this is a difficult issue, and I really really hope that I'm never going to be in a position to make decision like this, but I think that I would've agreed with the doctors in their analysis that it would be rather pointless to maintain the bodily functions of the baby, since there never was much promise of tolerable human life for her.
It is, of course, easy to see in retrospect that the decision to keep the girl alive has done no good but instead just prolonged her suffering and contributed to parents' separation. And that is the greatest problem of consequential ethics in general. Deontological ethics gives much better basis to make decisions like this. Would you appreciate being kept alive and never being able to live? To be unable to do anything but suffer until death comes?
I for one wouldn't really value it if I had been kept alive just because my mum and dad couldn't face the truth that I would never be able to live despite being alive. Not that I had ever known about it, as I suspect the poor girl is unaware of anything but pain.
Darkness - imprisoning me
All that I see
Absolute horror
I cannot live
I cannot die
Trapped in myself
Body my holding cell...
-
To sum up what had been posted before:
"There IS a time to play God, and a time NOT to. Knowing the difference is the acknowledgement of wisdom..." - Me.
-
Your opinion on life, and any judgment you may be willing to pass over another human being's life without their direct consent does not matter.
Lets make a few assumptions and see if what you're saying holds water.
A new disease is found, it renders people vegtables with no power to communicate with others. They can't speak, hear or show any sort of reaction to stimuli. They're also in agonizing pain and while the disease is not life threatening (it is possible that they will live) - they will do so in suffering for as long as they are alive. It becomes a common yet untreatable disease. One of your relatives becomes ill with it.
You are faced with a simple choice: Leave them be to live in agony for the rest of their life - possibly for years. Or choose to have them killed in a painless way. Only you can make that choice - nobody else will interfere with your decision.
You would choose to leave them be, knowing that they are in pain and that short of their eventual death they will see no mercy from this disease.
Could you live with that? In effect you're wishing that pain upon them by choosing not to offer up a release from it. What if it was you in agony, wishing that the pain would end but finding nobody would help you because they feel it's not their place?
Still feel the same?
-
Firstly, did the parents save to fight the child because they wanted it to live, or they simply didn't want it on their conscience that they chose to let her go? While I agree the stress must have been terrible for them, there are other parents with similar children who manage.
Were the doctors wrong to suggest they let her go? No. A Doctors responisiblity is to his patient, and when you are dealing with a pregnant couple, all parties are patients, and the Doctors had to take everyone into account. The chances are she will not live long, as tragic as that may be, 3 years is testament to her strength, but say she lived just as long again, and miraculously made it to 6, would she actually be 'alive'? Can she communicate? Can she make things or learn things? It appears that nobody is really sure. And I find myself asking the question 'What is it to be 'alive?'. Some describe it as a gift from God, others as a simple chemical process. The simple fact that her heart is beating and her lungs are working are clinical proof that she is alive medically, albeit assisted, however, my own personal feeling is that if I was stuck in a wheelchair unable to communicate my thoughts or feelings in any way, I'd rather end it than be trapped inside the prison of my own mind.
That money being used to keep someone at perpetual deaths door may have been better spent pulling other people back from it. That's not cruelty, that's Triage.
-
Your opinion on life, and any judgment you may be willing to pass over another human being's life without their direct consent does not matter.
And whose opinion matters then? Your opinion that the default is to keep everyone alive?
Yes.
Unlike your opinion(s), mine encompasses the true virtues of the species, while yours hunts down matters that aren't yours to meddle in.
It is a good argument that parents should be the ones to decide for their child, and yes, I'll agree with that to the point where bad parenting (as in, people unfit to remain parents) becomes obvious and therefore the opinions of the parents are invalidated as well.
So it is up to other people to decide what's best for her.
The answer is flat out no.
The emo poem sort of solidifies my argument. Preconceived notions of the negative, projected onto someone else is the definition of a psychotic god-image problem.
-
bringing this child into the world was a crime - both a crime against her (subjecting her to a life of torture) and a crime against society (making them finance her life of torture)
-
Unfortunately, medical science is reaching the 'can do a thing'/'must do a thing' conundrum. It's a problem that is going to occur more often as science advances.
-
Unlike your opinion(s), mine encompasses the true virtues of the species, while yours hunts down matters that aren't yours to meddle in.
BD, dude... just listen to yourself for a second. :wtf:
-
I think the simplest most effective way to solve the problem is to follow a few simple rules.
1) if you make it out of your mother with your heart beating and take a breath, you are alive and have the rights of any other living person, this includes the right to live.
2) the right to live is a right you can opt out of, but only by choice and in a sound state of mind.
3) situations that make these rules hard to apply should be solved before they reach the point of delema, if at all posable.
-
Blackdove, without more rationale than what you've given so far, what you're saying is just impressive sophistry. Arguing that the default is to preserve life is not adequate; those arguing against you have made a case for the "sanctity" of life being contingent upon certain measurable characteristics. If you want to counter that argument you're going to have to demonstrate that the value of purely biological life is not a contingency but a necessity.
-
how about the erring on the side of caution argument?
-
Despite the debate has been steadily going towards a direction of generalizing matters, I think it's time to get some other sources than the original link and Stetson-Harrison method, just to correct some of the factually erraneous statements made in this thread (those made by myself included):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlotte_Wyatt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlotte_Wyatt)
Current status
Charlotte is alert and can see and hear. Although she still needs constant oxygen, Charlotte is now well enough to be discharged from hospital.
Charlotte Wyatt Blogspot (http://www.charlottewyatt.blogspot.com/)
Apparently, Charlotte is as of now neither deaf or blind, nor unable of movement.
Teaches one to make assumptions. Oh well.
However, regardless of this particular case I'm still of the opinion that in some cases, preserving life is not worthwile. The trouble is knowing which case has hope of living satisfying life and which case doesn't.
It is a difficult thing, and I don't think there is single right answer - it's too case-dependant. I definitly wouldn't place every disabled child onto "not-to-resuscitate"-list, no way. Besides, if I were a doctor, I would not be too keen to convict a newborn to life-long unlife. After all, whatever brain damage a prematurely born child might have, ther's no way of declaring the situation to be final, since the brains keep developing even after normal nine months of pregnancy. So, a prematurely born baby keeps developing his or her nerve systems - including new brain cells - that just might cover a large part of what was lost. And it should also be taken into account that the brain can assign tasks from disabled areas to undamaged ones, especially child's brain. They just have to learn things again, and child's brain cells can make new connections much more easily than adult's. It might even be possible for a prematurely born child to develope a whole new visual brain cortex to replace the irreparably damaged one. Or to create new connections between an undamaged area of brain and the ears, to effectively create new area dedicated to analyzing hearing. I'm not a neurologist, but it wouldn't feel too impossible to me.
However, regardless of the particular case described here, let's think of a general situation where a child is borne disabled, physically ill and incapable of any normal mental development - that would mean that the child has no viable interface to world due to severely disabled sensory functions and no voluntary body movements.
If the condition can be proven to be this bad, I don't see any reason to prolong vital functions. Furthermore, if the child can feel pain, that's even more of a reason to not prolong the suffering.
It's the "prove" part that causes most difficulty. How to be sure? In cases like this, where a prematurely born child has seemingly brain damage, I would wait and see what happens when he or she is kept alive until at least a month or two after calculated time of birth. If the brain damage remains as extensive as it was in the beginning, then I just might resign, since after that it would be unlikely for tha brain functions to get anywhere near the level required for actually living, aside from vital organ functions.
Unlike your opinion(s), mine encompasses the true virtues of the species, while yours hunts down matters that aren't yours to meddle in.
1. Define "true virtue of the species". What good would it do to keep alive a person who has no hope of ever feeling anything but pain, like described in the latter example rather than the actual case of Charlotte Wyatt?
2. When a person can't affect his or her life, not even to express his or her opinion about things, everything is meddling. And in case where the only sensation was constant pain, I would actually view prolonging the life of pain with medical technology more of a meddling than not doing so.
Someone always makes decisions for people who cannot do it themselves. Furthermore, it is disputable if a person with only sensation ever being suffering even has such a thing as developed personality, or ability to abstract thinking. If the situation can be reliably confirmed of having no hope of getting any better, then I think it's simply a decision between pain and no pain - and if the "no pain" option involves death - or stopping vital function support - so be it.
The emo poem sort of solidifies my argument. Preconceived notions of the negative, projected onto someone else is the definition of a psychotic god-image problem.
I wouldn't be too keen to define that particular Metallica song (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_(Metallica_song)) as an emo poem, but suit yourself.
As to what comes to projecting preconceived notions onto a situation where a person has known nothing but pain from his or her birth, there are multiple argumenst that make it highly unprobable for him or her to have anything good to live for.
Mental development demands interface to the world (and particularly social interaction). Sensory deprivation in itself is a very effective form of torture. It is practically impossible for a child with no sensations other than pain to develop any kind of picture of the world around him, not to mention having any kind of remotely normal mental development. He or she would stay forever on fetal level of conscience, if not lower.
And that opinion is not preconceived negative notion, its based on scientific data as to what is required for mental development of a child.
-
how about the erring on the side of caution argument?
A good argument, but the problem I have with it is that it supposes the brain to be some kind of metaphysical strongbox, the workings of which are hopelessly obscured by skepticism. But science shows us that consciousness is simply another biological function that is just as dependent upon its corresponding organ as the act of respiration is dependent upon the lungs. So the way I see it, someone arguing against letting this girl die has two options: Argue that one's humanity is not dependent upon the functions provided to us by the brain, or argue that the physical state of the brain isn't a sufficient basis for knowledge of another's conscious existence. I think that both of these arguments are at best based in philosophical skepticism, and at worst, quasi-religious.
EDIT: In light of Herra Tohtori's most prudent investigation, consider this argument officially hypothetical.
-
Unlike your opinion(s), mine encompasses the true virtues of the species, while yours hunts down matters that aren't yours to meddle in.
I think it's rather arrogant to presume to know the 'virtues of the species'; I was always under the impression that human life was valued highly because of it's content of emotional, physical and intellectual exploration. As far as I'm aware, it is not defined as 'suffering', and perhaps you should consider that the value is not in the existence of life but the content. Is a lifetime of blinding pain experienced with the barest of senses and no comprehension or hope truly a valuable life to live?
-
left her blind, deaf and incapable of voluntary movement or response...The permanent damage to the brain is certain and irreversible.
this girl can't hear.
this girl can't see.
this girl can't move.
this girl can't talk.
this girl has permanent and irreversible (<--keywords) brain damage.
this girl has no one to care for her.
this girl has no one that loves her.
this girl has no home.
this girl is being kept alive by the government.
good god people. how is it NOT obvious what needs to and should be done :rolleyes:
-
left her blind, deaf and incapable of voluntary movement or response...The permanent damage to the brain is certain and irreversible.
this girl can't hear.
this girl can't see.
this girl can't move.
this girl can't talk.
this girl has permanent and irreversible (<--keywords) brain damage.
this girl has no one to care for her.
this girl has no one that loves her.
this girl has no home.
this girl is being kept alive by the government.
good god people. how is it NOT obvious what needs to and should be done :rolleyes:
And as I three messages up told, Charlotte Watts apparently can hear, see and move. She is also aware of her surroundings and it would appear that she can be discharded from hospital as soon as her parents get their act together.
Permanent and irreversible brain damage in itself is not always life-impairing thing, it's the extent of damage that matters. Human brain is surprisingly adaptable, especially little child's brain, because they grow new brain cells and thus they don't have to rely on making a plethora of new connections between cells...
As to family conditions of this particular girl, I'm not in a position to analyze the situation but it appears that her dad got a bit screwed up about the separation and took a drug overdose, but is seemingly in better psychological condition now and is trying to have his daughter to home with him, as is told on the blogspot I linked to in my last message.
Only time will hopefully tell what Charlotte herself thinks of all this. :rolleyes:
-
I'm not sure on her exact sensory capacity, becuase the only medical judgement states there is irreversible brain damage (there's no mention of developmental issues with the eyes, ears, etc that could be reversed with time); and the references to partial sight and hearing may well be perceptive from the parents rather than actual, making the situation rather vague. Unfortunately, the Terri Schiavo case taught me never to trust pictures, video, et al because of the impact of selection.
-
Yeah, the blogspot is written extremely sentimentally in my opinion, but there are some things that do rise my eyebrow...
For example this:
At birth she weighed only 458 grams, and was barely five inches long. She was immediately put in an incubator, and it was three months time before Darren and Debbie were able to hold her.
But Charlotte improved excellently, and by July of 2004 she was eating from a spoon, and required hardly any oxygen. At this time, she could see and hear without any problem.
St. Mary's hospital then decided that it was time to move Charlotte out of the intensive care unit, and into the children's ward. Almost immediately, she got a blood infection, and started needing more and more oxygen. Then the day came when her parents were rung up and told that Charlotte's lungs had collapsed, and she had been put on a ventilator.
Thrice Charlotte was put on a ventilator, leaving her in September needing an oxygen level of 100%. The doctors at Portsmouth then decided that she would never recover, she would be always blnd and deaf, in constant pain, and unable to communicate for the rest of her life. They urged Mr. Justice Hedley to allow them not to care for her if she would need to be ventilated again. Her parents felt she was a fighter and should be given every chance, and they pleaded for her right to life, but the medical establishment was all on the other side. The Judge decided in favour of the hospital.
So, according to this text, her condition could in fact be argued to be a result of a medical error to place her into normal childrens' ward too early, which resulted in her blood infection and consequent damage to lungs and other organs.
Which kind of makes the situation even more :sigh:.
However, I wouldn't blindly trust the blogspot... it is written from parents' point of view, obviously. I would love to hear/read the opinions of what happened from medical personnel involved in her treatment, as well as what they think of her current condition.
Anyway, debating about particular cases doesn't lead the discussion anywhere.
Life can be good for a disabled person, I do not try to deny that, but in some cases I don't think death would be any worse option than to keep living with no other content than pain in life.
-
Straight and to the point: the court should have found in favour of the doctors and let the poor child die.
-
To play devil's advocate, there have been miracles in medicine before (sorry I'm not linking to specific examples, but I know there have been recoveries when doctors have said it would never happen), and maybe Charlotte will be the next. If so, using our 20/20 hindsight, should she have been killed?
The whole situation is a tough call. Granted, IceFire's answer is straight and to the point, but that didn't make it any less of a tough call at the time. Anyone who is able to quickly decide to end a life, even one that's suffering or doesn't meet with my standards of "life", worries me.
-
To play devil's advocate, there have been miracles in medicine before (sorry I'm not linking to specific examples, but I know there have been recoveries when doctors have said it would never happen), and maybe Charlotte will be the next. If so, using our 20/20 hindsight, should she have been killed?
Not killed (or euthanised). The order was 'do not resuscitate'* (an order later rescinded with an upgrading of her condition). This meant the doctors did not wish to inflict invasive (painful, uncomfortable) life support methods upon the child on order to keep her alive should her condition deteriorate and she stop breathing. This is different from withdrawing current & ongoing life support.