I think if the parent/guardian wants to keep on LS I think we should. I personally can't support taking child off life support against the parents wishes.
Southerners, once again, fight to end the life of a minority baby
- Thread starter LadyT
- Start date
I think if the parent/guardian wants to keep on LS I think we should. I personally can't support taking child off life support against the parents wishes.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
"But the govt proper should not make the decision for them. That is my stand."
Correct me if I am wrong... but doesn't the law say it is up to the doctors/hospital and not the politicians.
Correct me if I am wrong... but doesn't the law say it is up to the doctors/hospital and not the politicians.
I could. Just as I could support the laws that take a child in pain from, oh let's say a broken arm, and enforce medical care on parents who believe that prayer is the answer to his broken arm.
Saying that this child should remain in perpetual pain for their entire unnaturally extended life because of the emotive rationale that the parent believes beyond all scientific evidence that his pain grimaces are smiles seems beyond the pale. We wouldn't allow a prisoner to be forced into that much pain, it would be cruel and unusual punishment. This child has done no wrong and perpetuating the pain through such methodology is intensely wrong.
It was up to the doctors.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
"Its a tough subject matter. But in general, I'd favor the side of life. In this case we know that if the kids off of life support he'd die. I'd favor the side that wants him to live."
Not to spin this thread down a whole new line.... but the above argument from Lady T sounds a LOT like the argument to protect unborn children.
Not to spin this thread down a whole new line.... but the above argument from Lady T sounds a LOT like the argument to protect unborn children.
"Its a tough subject matter. But in general, I'd favor the side of life. In this case we know that if the kids off of life support he'd die. I'd favor the side that wants him to live."
Not to spin this thread down a whole new line.... but the above argument from Lady T sounds a LOT like the argument to protect unborn children.
Totally different circumstances though. But I can kind of see where you are going with this.
uscitizen
Villified User
And who made the law ?
T
TRGLDTE
Guest
It's not my choice, he's not my child.
uscitizen
Villified User
Agreed, it is not my child and therefore not my choice in this tragic situation.
T
TRGLDTE
Guest
I agree regarding the pain, but were I Emilio's father, I might have a different opinion.
Tragedies such as these have no easy solutions.
If the alternative is death and there is a dispute, then I'd go with the party that supports the child or incapacitated person's life. Again, I'm trying not to be too judgemental. I don't necessarily think letting someone die is a better alternative.
It was the choice, by law, of the doctors and hospitals. In the case of the broken arm, the judicial system usually intervenes.
T
TRGLDTE
Guest
The reason we have courts is becaue there are gray areas. Laws are not necesarily "one-size-fits-all." In the case of "the law," what was the bill intended to provide? Does it apply here?
I understand how subjective it is, but to be fair, we're not talking life or death with a broken arm. The alternative is a better life and no pain for the child with the broken arm. The alternative in the case we're talking about here is death. I have no issues with doctors and maybe even legislators intervening on that case, but this is another can of worms.
I used a broken arm. It could just as easily have been a cancer patient. Either way, death or life, we consistently intervene on behalf of a child over a parent who may believe that they have the best interest of the child at heart.
This particular law was designed for just such a case.
But in this case, the doctor's alternative is death. If that is the case, then I think both the parents and the hospital administration should both agree. Otherwise, I'd personally side with life.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
"And who made the law ?"
The politicians in Texas made it. It was designed so that the medical professionals could intervene when a parent let their emotions get in the way of the best interest of the child.
The politicians in Texas made it. It was designed so that the medical professionals could intervene when a parent let their emotions get in the way of the best interest of the child.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
US... by the way... was there not just a thread on the subject of the government passing laws that took the decision OUT of the hands of the doctors? Now you are bitching because they put the decision IN the hands of the doctors?
I will look for it, I believe it was on the partial birth abortion laws...
I will look for it, I believe it was on the partial birth abortion laws...
I would not over torture. The child's life is going to end regardless, this makes his entire life torture only to satisfy an irrational belief of the parent. I do not believe that to be in the best interest of the child.
It would be like a cancer patient's father insisting he get no pain killers, that he must die "naturally". The father could make the choice for himself, but not for the child in most cases. The courts would intervene.