In East Lansing, MI, February 1994, Traci Messenger delivered her second child Michael by C-section. He was born at 25 weeks gestation, after early labor couldn’t be prevented. In preparation for the premature birth, Traci and her husband Gregory (who is a dermatologist) were informed by their doctor of the risks to the child. At the time, a child born at 25 weeks had a 30-50% chance of survival and 90% chance of a brain bleed causing some degree of mental and physical handicap. They requested that the staff not resuscitate the child or put him on life support at birth. Their doctor later denied agreeing to their request, wanting to evaluate the infant before deciding what to do (this was seemingly a miscommunication between patient and doctor).
When born, Michael weighed 1 pound 11 ounces, typical for his gestational age, and was purple and limp. A neonatal intensive care physician’s assistant, who had been instructed by the doctor to not revive the child unless it looked
2007-12-19 13:04:07 · 9 answers · asked by BiologyQuestions 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
“vigorous”, did anyway. (Notice that the doctor didn’t fully convey the patient’s request) Michael was put on a ventilator and blood tests were begun to assess his condition further. Before the tests were back from the lab, the Messengers discovered that their son was being treated and were very surprised. Asking to be alone with the child, Gregory (with Tracy present) unhooked the life support and Michael died, less than one hour after his birth.
Dr. Gregory Messenger was charged with manslaughter in Ingham County, and was later acquitted (found not guilty) by a jury.
How do you consider this case in terms of parental authority, parental responsibility to operate in the best interest of the infant, the duty of the hospital staff to respect the wishes of parents, and the value of life of impaired infants (or those at risk of impairment)? What would you have done Yahoo community if this was your kid?
2007-12-19 13:04:52 · update #1
If the parents were given all the facts and they seem reasonably educated. Their wishes should have been adhered to. I would never second guess their decision. I do not know what exactly I would do. Sometimes our medical advances have outweighed what the practicality of the results are. 1994 is a lot different than 2007
2007-12-19 13:15:52 · answer #1 · answered by sniggle 5 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Very difficult for me to say. 25 weeks gestation is now considered a "micro-preemie" with a chance of survival. When my son was born he was 24 weeks gestation and considered unsaveable. They wrapped him and let me hold him until he passed away. This was 20 years ago.
I would be hard pressed as a parent to say "do nothing" when there as a chance, but considering the high risk of impairment these children face I think that it falls into the category of "just because we can.....doesn't always mean we should."
I can't say what I would do in their same position - but I know I would never forgive myself if I selfishly said "save my baby" and the baby ended up living a terrible life of handicaps and medicaly problems.
2007-12-19 13:10:37 · answer #2 · answered by Susie D 6 · 4⤊ 0⤋
When the parents saw the baby and new what his life would be like for him and themselves, I believe they had the right to decide what could/should be done. The hospital should have followed the requests of the parents.
I do not like the idea of not saving someone's life but there are times when you just know no matter what you do, they won't survive. God Bless his little soul and the parents too for making a very hard decision.
2007-12-19 13:14:51 · answer #3 · answered by ♥STREAKER♥©℗† 7 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Good God is that sad! I don't know what to think as a parent of a 9 year old son. I know it's not right, but I suppose that they didn't want their child to suffer. If they requested that he not be resuscitated, and the staff did it anyways, I would suppose I would be upset.. that's if I chose to say DNR! I feel awful for the parents, but I can understand that they wouldn't want the child to suffer. I am kind of confused about this.. very sad!
2007-12-19 13:14:36 · answer #4 · answered by Nikki 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I know Dr. Messenger and use him as an expert on some of our cases from time to time. He is an EXCELLENT doctor and a very nice person. I think his decision to not resuscitate were based upon the 30-50% chance of survival not to mention quality of life but it is a person decision and prosecuting him is an outrage!
2007-12-19 13:57:02 · answer #5 · answered by lahockeyg 5 · 3⤊ 1⤋
I think the parents did the right thing for the child. He would have suffered terribly (and probably did) and would have needed special care, surgeries, and could never have lived a full life.
2007-12-19 13:13:11 · answer #6 · answered by smartsassysabrina 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
If it was my child I would have tried everything to save it.
These parents did kill their child. There are LEGAL ways to allow children who will not survive to die peacefully. They could have signed a DNR-which is what they SHOULD have done to begin with. They took matters into their own hands, which is murder.IF they felt so strongly about nothing being done, a DNR should have been in place BEFORE the baby was born. This would have changed the whole dynamic and the baby would have been allowed to die peacefully in his mothers arms.
I feel for this family. But what they did was in fact murder.
2007-12-19 13:25:23 · answer #7 · answered by SKITTLES 6 · 0⤊ 4⤋
The child must be given the right to life and the case against the mother must be appealed to the higher court to determine if she is guilty of infanticide.
2007-12-19 13:09:32 · answer #8 · answered by FRAGINAL, JTM 7 · 0⤊ 4⤋
sounds like you are looking for homework help
2007-12-19 13:39:54 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋