The parents of a brain-damaged baby at the centre of a battle over her right to life are to try again to overturn a court order not to resuscitate her. At the Court of Appeal, Darren and Debbie Wyatt, from Portsmouth, will present a letter from doctors saying Charlotte has made remarkable progress. The 22-month-old has serious lung, brain and kidney damage. Doctors at St Mary's Hospital, in Portsmouth, won the legal right not to resuscitate her last October. They had argued that her brain and other organs were so seriously damaged that she had "no feeling other than continuing pain". But she is now said to respond to loud noise and bright images, and even smiles. Charlotte, who was born three months prematurely, spends most of her time in an oxygen box, but is taken out to be cuddled by her parents when they visit. At a hearing in April this year, Mr Justice Hedley renewed the court order allowing hospital doctors to let her die.
THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT - WHICH CONTROLS THE COURTS AND THE HOSPITALS - WANTS THE DOCTORS TO BE ABLE TO "PULL THE PLUG OUT" AGAINST THE PARENTS WISHES. Now if this was your baby, who would you want to MAKE THE DECISION: the doctors or you?
And what's all this BS this about PAIN: the Left claimed a brain-damaged Terri Schiavo felt no pain when they starved her to death; the Left claims now that before 25 weeks a fetus feels no pain (even though it responds to touch); and NOW AGAIN, the Left claims that a 22 MONTH OLD brain-damaged baby can ONLY FEEL PAIN. There is NO CONSISTENCY TO THE POSITIONS OF THE LEFT - EXCEPT EVERY SINGLE TIME THEY ARE ON THE SIDE OF DEATH.
8 comments:
This baby is not being starved or lacking in medical care. The decision not to resucitate is far different from taking measures that will definitely lead to death. It is not easy for families to see loved ones die. The reader of this decision lacks details as to exact medical findings as to the baby's comfort,symptoms etc. If the baby dies, lack of resusitation is not the same as stopping basic life support. It is the decision to not attempt extraordinary means to prolong the inevitable. If the baby lives, it will continue to have basic care.
pat, thanks for stopping in and commenting.
i think u should reread the bbc article.
(1) the doctors want to take the baby OFF life support and the parents do not. the loved ones do not. shouod the STATE have the power to take people off life support? i think not.
(2) the Left uses "pain" conveniently. they claim that Terri was TOO brain damaged to feel pain, so it would be better to MURDER her. then they argue that a brain-damaged baby CAN ONLY feel pain. this is inconsistent.
ALOS: they are now arguing that until a fetus is 25-29 weeks it cannot feel PAIN and thertefore can be aborted, even though we KNOW FOR A FACT that fetuses respond to external stiumulus before 20 weeks.
If anathesia is the "be-all/and-all" for the Left in detrminibng the qulaity of life and therfore the VIABILTY of life, then why not anesthetize all the people you dopn;t like, and then just nmurder them!? Or anesthetize convicts before performing capiutal punishment!? Tehn it would NOKT be "cruel" in their bokk, would it!?
Suffering is paret of life. Dealing with suiffereing is a major way we grow as human and show COMPASSION.
the Left has no REAL compaasion, they want people to DIE is they dopn;t have a materially perfect quality of life, healthwise.
Killing the infoirm is eugenics and it was a major underpinning of Nazism. it is a form of genmocxiode against the weakest among us - LIKE ABORTION.
The Left advocates the GENOCIDE of fetuses, and in the case of cutting people off life support INSPITE OF THE FACT THAT FAMILY MEMBERS WANT THEM SUPPORTED (as in this case and the Schiavo case).
This is hardly SURPRISING:
nearly AL THE GENOCIDE IN THE 20TH CDENTRUY WAS COMMITTED BY LEFTISTS TRYING TO CREAST UTOPIA:
stalin. hitler. pol pot. mugabe. kim. mao. all ELFTSIST (when you define left as statist/.socialist: and YES: Hitler was a socialist; NAZI stands for NATIONAL SOCIALIST WORKERS PARTY.
againh: the STATE should not have a role in this when (a) the patient has expressed a clear opinion; and (b) in the ABSENCE of that (in the case of Terri and this preemie in the UK)there are family memebers who advocate life-support.
that's my point.
thanks again for poppin' in!
This decision is only slightly related to nationalized health care. The fundamental question is when should a patient be kept alive. Everyone (except some extremists) agrees that people who are healthy and can take care of themselves should be allowed to live (with some disagreement over whether they can be killed for crimes). Most people agree that people who have temporary medical problems should be kept alive as best as possible. The controversy starts when you have people that have permanent (or at least seemingly permanent) medical conditions that will require continuous medical attention for the rest of the patient's life.
If you have national health care, you will run into the problem that for an infinite amount of money, you can keep almost anyone alive for as long as you want to. At some point, the government has to set a limit to what it will pay to keep people alive. Setting a limit on how much the government will pay for one person's healthcare is reasonable, but it will unfortunately lead to the government effectively killing some people. This is the only relationship that this decision has to nationalized health care. The court case could have ended up the same way in America. My opinion is that in such cases, the government should provide the family with the option of paying for the continued care, as the only interest the government has in cutting off life support is reducing costs.
The other side of this is that not having nationalized health care is killing off those who live in poverty and can't afford health insurance. Why do you think it is fine to deny health care to people that have no money while simultaneously claiming that people who have no brain (according to their doctors) should have care indefinitely? You can claim that adults who live in poverty do so because they are lazy or screwed up, but there are also many children in America that have no health insurance because their parents can't afford it. The children have done nothing wrong, but you want to deny them healthcare. Not having nationalized health care is also genocide against the weakest among us.
What I think should have been done in Terri's case, is that the courts should have allowed her to be declared legally dead with some exceptions. Her parents should have been allowed to pay for her life support for as long as they wanted. Her husband should have been able to go on with his life as though she were dead (including getting whatever inheritance he would get) except that he would have to put aside some of the money in a trust fund. That amount should have been determined as though they had gotten a divorce instead. If she recovered, she would get the trust fund. If she died without recovering, then he would get the trust fund. This would have allowed her parents to maintain their hope of recovery while her husband could go on with his life. The financial situation would have eventually worked out in favor of whoever was right.
James
james - thanks for poppin in and commentin.
your commetn is thoughtfull and well written.
you are wrong on one major count, at last one which i think is important.
you wrote:
"The other side of this is that not having nationalized health care is killing off those who live in poverty and can't afford health insurance. Why do you think it is fine to deny health care to people that have no money while simultaneously claiming that people who have no brain (according to their doctors) should have care indefinitely? "
FEDERAL law mandates that NO ONE may be denied medical care based on the ability or lack of ability to pay.
UNINSURED people DO GET HEALTHCARE - albeit mostly in emergency rooms.
the issue is: it costs A LOT, and opften things are caught later and wehen they are more expensive to treat.
ALSO: you have to prove you are poor. and NOT jst a mooch.
so your premise is wildy hyperbolic to the point of being FALSE.
there is NOTHING like genocide of the poor going on in this country.
poor peole here get better care than middleclass folks in countries with natioanlaized healthcare.
you can google other examples at this blog. canada, UK, itlay, france ALL have MAJOR MAJOPR problems.
and in th UK DEATH RATES FOR ALMOST ALL DISEASXES ARE MUCH MUCH HIGHER THAN FOR THE AME DISEASES HERE IN THE USA - and that includes POOR PEOPLE.
you seem like a very bright fella.
start getting the FACTS, and THEN making up your mind.
stop relying on the left0wing sominated media for your "facts." cause that's all they giove you -- "facts."
for another example see my other post from today about the LIES the MSM are telling you about Iraq.
they LIE all the time.
thanks again for poppin in and commentin.
your views are always welcome.
remeber: freedom of speech is not freedom from criticism!
Um Terri Schiavo COULDN'T feel pain. Her brain was liquid. Read the autopsy reports, you idiot.
anono=ymous a--hole: terri's brain wasn't liquid: IN FACT her whole body was DEHYDRATED and as all brains are mostly liquid her brain shrank due to the FORCED DEHYDRATION/MURDER.
the autopsy analysis was faulty; independent analysis of it can be read here:
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/
002756.htm
"Everyone
with the most basic medical background knows that the brain shrinks massively when the body is dehydrated. It can shrink up to 40 percent in fatal dehydration cases. Anorexics can lose up to 25 percent of their brainmass just by not eating. Terri had also been denied food on and of for over a decade and for 13 days prior to her death."
terri was murdered by the state courts and the federal courts refused to step in to let her parents save her.
I have been on-line searching for hours for information regarding health insurance nashville and stumbled across your blog during my journey :-) Blogger your blog is really amazing! Keep up the great work. Obviously my search on health insurance nashville was way off when compared to this post and find it funny how it landed me here. The internet is a funny thing. Anyways, great job on your blogging and keep up the good work! I been searching for health insurance nashville for over 2 hours and needed a break from it. I started reading your blog and really started getting into it.
P.S I will add you to my favorites so I can come back and visit later
P.S.S If you want to bookmark my site I am at health insurance nashville. You never know you may find some good deals!
Hi Blogger your blog is really great! Wow :-) As I was out blog surfing and surfing the web for detailed info on massachusetts health insurance I stumbled across your blog. Obviously my search landed me here and it is a little off subject compared to this post, but I am certainly glad I did come across your blog. Did I already tell you I like it! If you would not mind, I would like to add your link to my "favorites" page to come back and read again sometime. Should you ever need it, there's lots of information on this site about massachusetts health insurance. Again, great blog and keep up the great work!
Post a Comment