I'm not a baby-killer or anything, but I'd like to know other people's thoughts on how we use all the medical miracles we have to make a baby live when it is born with a life-threatening genetic defect - especially if it will mean their life will be difficult and painful, and considering the proliferation of the genetic defect to future generations. Is it going in the face of nature? Is it a good idea?
2006-09-08 03:13:31 · 11 answers · asked by Joe 2 in Society & Culture ➔ Other - Society & Culture
I think I see where you are going. Sometimes it all depends on quality of life. But, as a parent... if faced with that situation... I think you are praying for miracles.. I don't know if I could just let go if there even was a slight posssibility. However, if you talk with people with disabilities, most don't regret being born. They are just different. There is a lot to be learned from them.
2006-09-08 03:19:20 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
This is where stem-cell research comes in. I'd like to say thank you to President Bush for vetoing a bill that would make saving babies with life-threatening genetic defects actually possible, hopefully in the very near future.
2006-09-08 03:18:23 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Its a good question. The consensus tends to be that anything is better than being deprived of life. It can be a painful, sad, completely devoid of happiness kind of life, but its better than no like at all (which seems to be especially true to people who claim that they believe that Heaven, which is the most wonderfuy place imaginable is waiting for us when we die). But I think some things are worse than death. On the other hand, if it were my child, I don't think I could make the decision not to do everything I could to save him or her and make them better. It's just not a question that has any kind of answer you could come up with just by thinking about it.
2006-09-08 03:21:34 · answer #3 · answered by Chris D 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
i have seen babies with life threatening defects...they are cared for like normal babies in the special care nurseries(in the hosp), but sometimes their defects are so major, like abnormal hearts, poor lung capacity, and most of them are born premature and are prone for infections and no matter how much is done they dun survive for very long, and imagine if they do, its life long treatment for them, some have mental abnormalities and such, it will also be hard on the parents to care for these children and also see them suffering, thus the reason they have amniocentesis during the 20th week of pregnancy to check for any chromosomal and genetic defects, some have severe genetic defects involving the spine, chromosomal abnormalities wit associated congenital defects...so sometimes(in certain countries..) the doctors advise medical termination of pregnancy, for few reasons
- abnormal babies can cause complications to the mother during the course of pregnancy
-the fetus is not viable and not suitable for life(like anencephaly babies have no skull covering...and sometimes no brain...)
-to lessen the burden of the parents of seeing the child suffer and die later after the months of pregnancy and long hours of labor ....
2006-09-08 03:27:06 · answer #4 · answered by aneurinaa 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I am sure there have been parents faced with that horrible choice to make a decision on the quality of life their newborn will have if it is hooked up to machines to keep it alive for that one miracle chance, and decided to let nature take its course. I think it is a matter of individual choice if its their child to decide along with the doctors what the quality of life they will have. I don't think the public should decide that. Such is the case of the woman who the husband decided to take out the feeding tube. If his life was over with this woman and wanted to move on he should have given up his rights to her parents, and they should have had the options. They gave birth to her, not him. Just my opinion.
2006-09-08 03:25:09 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
If the problem is really life-threatening, then nothing is to be done but palliative therapy and the continuation of the genetic problem will be self-limiting...
2006-09-08 03:20:04 · answer #6 · answered by Frank 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Each baby has a soul We could unhook machines though and let nature take its course... Surgery is up to the parents
2006-09-08 03:17:36 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
It is the hallmark of a society to save and protect those who cannot do the same for themselves, thus these heroic effocrts to save those that in earlier times, would have died
2006-09-08 03:17:22 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Joe you are a cuttie!!! as for your question I think its terrible to let a human suffer. If they can live comfortably more power to em.
2006-09-08 03:16:57 · answer #9 · answered by Karrien Sim Peters 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't know. This is not a cop-out answer....I simply don't know.
2006-09-08 03:17:59 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋