Saturday, February 19, 2005

and now for something completely different

So, I guess this isn't really much to do with what we talked about in class but I wanted to see what you guys thought about this situation...

Friends' of the family (Tom and Marti) have a son (Sean). Sean (17 or 18) gets girlfriend (16 or 17) pregnant. Girlfriend decides it would be a better idea not to go to the doctor and that way no one will find out that she is pregnant. I don't think she remembered that she would actually have to give birth and that might bring about some attention....anyway! Girlfriend gives birth and they do all of the normal tests on the baby. Turns out that the baby will not respond to anything. It won't suckle, turn it's head, grip, nothing. The baby was born with 1/3 of a brain and the only way it was being kept alive was through the IV feeding it. The hospital decided that it was more humane to starve the baby to death rather than give it the appropriate drugs to allow it to die in peace without suffering.

I know that there are laws about what can be done in allowing someone to die. It troubles me that we are at a point in history where we deem it better to allow a human being to suffer to death rather than use the technology we have developed to provide peace. Just curious on what others thought about this... Post it.

4 Comments:

At 3:40 AM, Keith B said...

I'd really like to hear the doctors explanation as to why it would be more humane. Given what I know, starvation is slow and agonizing. Euthenasia via drugs is a needle prick followed by fatigue and a quiet, peaceful death. In that light, it seems as though starvation is abusive and in a way, neglectful. If it were a dog instead of a human, this wouldn't even be a question. So how can the doctors justify this decision? From what you said, it's disgusting and totally inhumane. But these are professionals. Surely they have a strong and justifiable reason for said action. Whatever that reason is, it had better be phenominal.

I hate to admit it, but a part of me is wondering if this was an administrative decision. You know, the kind where someone would say, "The cost of drugs for euthanasia is cheaper than monitoring the child of several days on hospital equipment until it dies, so we'll go with the more expensive route." I doubt this is the case, but the thought crossed my mind, so I thought I'd share it.

Just a side note, I want to ask if charges should be brought up against the mother. Her situation is somewhat understandable, keeping the pregnancy a secret. But then again, she was mature enough to have sex. The decision making from its result should've been equally mature. Her neglect to tell her parents, go to a doctor and research her options raises questions about child abuse. Knowing she was pregnant, she should've done everything she could've to secure the child's health. Her actions were neglectful, and potentially resulted in the infants condition. Sean could've done something too, unless he was kept in the dark.

Getting back to the question of technology, I'm for it's use. I mean, if the child absolutely has to die; if there is no hope for any sort of future, just give it the drugs and let it go in peace. It doesn't serve any purpose to force the situation to drag on any longer than it has to. Make it quick and make it painless. It's a horrible thing to happen, but if it must, that seems to be the best way to handle it.

I remember a good quote on euthenasia. "All you're doing is keeping the suicide rates up." I don't know who said it, and I know it's not totally relevent to the situation, but I had to throw it in.

 
At 8:11 PM, Miguel said...

The issue raises a host of ethical conundrums, that's for sure.

A) is the mother guilty of wrong doing?
B) if so, what kind of punishment is appropriate?
C) what is an "ethical" way to end a life?
D) what is a "legal" way to end a life?
E) what responsibility do medical professional have?

We might be able to think of several others.

 
At 2:53 PM, Timoshenko said...

This is a heartbreaking situation. The ethics behind medicine is to help and cure the patient. Now the question stands as to whether helping the child in this case is to let him die and rest in heaven, or keep injecting him with timely-based drugs they know it will neither cure nor alleviate his pains? It is hard choice I hope that I don't have to take one day? And until then, I have no answer.

 
At 5:35 PM, Christine said...

Wow! Sounds like an ethical issue for sure! But, it doesn't sound much different than what we're doing to the elderly these days! Have you seen the nursing homes shoved full of miserable old people. Obviously, not all of them are miserable, but plenty are! My grandfather was told for five years.. You're going to die anytime. He lived through the pain and the suffering. He had a pile of medical problems and all that he wanted to do was die. The only way that would be possible would be to stop taking the 27 medications he was being prescribed. But, if he stopped taking the medications he would live through 2 or 3 months of HELL before his body finally failed him. He would be tortured taking every breath, so he kept taking the meds. Why is there no other option? Why is physician assisted suicide so taboo? I've heard the argument about "playing God" but don't we already do that by prolonging life.. aren't we already playing God every time we load up the meds and send you through another surgery... why can't people die peacefully? Why?
Any answers, I'd love to hear them.
As far as the girl in this situation, should she be charged.. I don't think so! We still have a lack of education with regards to sex and childbirth. Blame society not the individual!

 

Post a Comment

<< Home