Ive been thinking about since i heard about the tragic story of baby Charlottes parents i think doctors should legally be able to kill a young baby but does it seem right to you?
2007-02-24 23:30:03 · 24 answers · asked by Anonymous in Pregnancy & Parenting ➔ Pregnancy
I don't see stopping life support on anyone as killing them, as in the doctors are not murdering them by doing it, because you are simply not helping it to live anymore. If they were in another country without the technology we are lucky to have, they would be dead. I am not heartless, my thoughts and best wishes go out to both the child and its parents in these cases but sometimes it's just better to let go rather than subject the child to a lifetime of misery. I know if I wa in their shoes I'd probably want to cling on to my babys life too but as a purely objective opinion from someone outside who has no connection to the people involved sometimes I think it would be better to just let seriously ill people die rather than try and prolong their suffering
2007-02-25 00:55:37 · answer #1 · answered by Tilly 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Do you mean Charlotte Wyatt? My baby was born at 26 weeks like she was. I belive Charlotte was healthy and doing well but got an infection and now has disabilities. If I had been in the same position I am not sure what I would have done and I am very glad that I didn't have to make that awful choice. Would you kill a previously healthy child that had been run over for instance? Would you choose to let the baby live and be in constant pain? It is a difficult debate and unless you have walked in those shoes I don't think you can comment.
2007-02-25 07:46:45 · answer #2 · answered by lovelylittlemoo 4 · 1⤊ 2⤋
if the baby is on life support and it,s keeping the baby alive and the doctors say that the baby shows no sign of life then i think the machine should be turn off if the baby should start to show some sign it,s still alive then go and put it back onto the life support again and give it all the help it needs because it has a chance but keeping a baby alive with these machines when it,s showing no life at all is wrong no one wants to lose their baby
2007-02-25 08:21:26 · answer #3 · answered by tectmum1 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I did a little research on the particular case you referred to.
http://savecharlotte.com/
http://www.inclusiondaily.com/news/families/babycharlotte.htm
And this little girl has left the hospital, she pulled through. I don't know how much of a life she is living or what her future medical needs will be.
However, I believe that doctor's should not be able to override the wishes of the family, excluding cases where extensive brain damage exists and the patient has no cognitive ability. If a patient is in surgery and expires, that is one thing. If everything that can be done has been done, and the patient expires that is one thing. However, if the measures being taken are keeping the patient alive and the family (excluding any formal wishes made by a patient, since we are talking about children) wishes to continue life support, a doctor should not be able to override that choice. The same is to be applied in reverse, if a family wishes to end life support and the doctor disagrees, he should not be able to override that decision. Now in the cases of adults with living will, those should be followed.
Besides doctors take an oath to do no harm. Ending life support on an individual that might recover before medically advised, would be considered causing harm.
Just my two cents.
2007-02-25 08:09:25 · answer #4 · answered by raintigar 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Killing a child is never right, however does the questioner mean something other than "Killing" ?allowing a human being the dignity of a natural death when there is no hope of recovery is not unfair, look to what happens in nature for your answer.
We have the power of reason and sometimes have to take advice of learned people, we do not have the right to make anyone suffer when there is no need. Nature sometimes is a harsh tutor. Advancement in medical care is of paramount importance but not at the cost of suffering caused by futile intervention.
2007-02-25 07:55:16 · answer #5 · answered by SWEEP,S MATE! 1 · 5⤊ 1⤋
this is a hard one and everyone will have different views, personally i think if the child is in pain and will no longer be able to live any kind of normal life then yes, but on saying that if i ever had to make that same decision about my own kids i do not think i would be able to go through with it
2007-02-25 14:51:37 · answer #6 · answered by tracy w 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If it was a money reason Yes. If the doctors could not bring the Baby back to health, that is a question to be answered by some one greater than me. This is a hard one to answer
2007-02-25 07:48:08 · answer #7 · answered by thecharleslloyd 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
all depends on the on the situation if the baby is very brain damage and is not going to ever recover then id say yes but not all cases are the same !
2007-02-25 07:42:26 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
yes because the nhs is under strain and if there is no hope for a child then maybe then it would be better for the child and the family to turn off the machine the family want to hold on to the life but the child is not got ant kind of qquallity of life so why make it suffer? free up beds to save diffrent lives?
2007-02-25 07:36:25 · answer #9 · answered by chickenbutt 3 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Your wording isn't being fair to any parent faced with the prospect of having to stop life support on a child that is severely ill & has no chance of a normal life.
No one has the right to judge the parents of children or the children of parents faced with having to make this horrible decision. It is one that is not taken lightly.
2007-02-25 07:50:05 · answer #10 · answered by Lucy 5 · 2⤊ 2⤋