Hospital wants to remove baby's life support without family's consent - Page 2

thomez · 04-26-2007, 03:08 PM

If she has no way to pay for the care, and Medicare deems it inappropriate, the plug should be pulled. There is no real reason to continue past that point... but I will.

If the hospital believes it is a deleterious treatment, it should have the right to refuse to keep the baby alive. Hospitals need to have the right to make medical decisions - if I walked in today and asked for an arm amputation, they would of course tell me no, just as they should be able to tell this mother no. She can find someone else who is willing to do it.

If the state determines it is doing harm to the child or putting it in pain, the mother should be informed that she could be charged with abuse for her actions. The state has the right to protect a minor from harm, even from their parents.

lew · 04-26-2007, 03:45 PM

Originally Posted by thomez

If she has no way to pay for the care, and Medicare deems it inappropriate, the plug should be pulled. There is no real reason to continue past that point... but I will.

If the hospital believes it is a deleterious treatment, it should have the right to refuse to keep the baby alive. Hospitals need to have the right to make medical decisions - if I walked in today and asked for an arm amputation, they would of course tell me no, just as they should be able to tell this mother no. She can find someone else who is willing to do it.

If the state determines it is doing harm to the child or putting it in pain, the mother should be informed that she could be charged with abuse for her actions. The state has the right to protect a minor from harm, even from their parents.

Because she is on Medicare, then the plug can be pulled. But if she were paying for it with her own money, the state has zero right to tell her what to do with her child.

thomez · 04-26-2007, 03:48 PM

Originally Posted by lew

Because she is on Medicare, then the plug can be pulled. But if she were paying for it with her own money, the state has zero right to tell her what to do with her child.

That would depend on if it was deemed abusive and if she could find a hospital to perform the care.

04-26-2007, 04:45 PM

Originally Posted by thomez

tell her she can keep the baby alive as long as she wants, but not on our dollar

So it's a money issue then?

thomez · 04-26-2007, 04:49 PM

Originally Posted by 03 white zx3

So it's a money issue then?

it is an issue of tax dollars paying for ridiculous care that even the hospital does not want to provide

kinggovernor · 04-26-2007, 05:32 PM

Originally Posted by 7960

if they believe their treatment is causing the child to suffer needlessly, yes they do.

what about old people?

Kytro · 04-26-2007, 06:43 PM

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

what about old people?

I would say that depends on what condition they have, how much pain they are in, what they want to do (they have ability to make a choice, a baby cannot).

Kytro · 04-26-2007, 06:48 PM

Originally Posted by lew

Because she is on Medicare, then the plug can be pulled. But if she were paying for it with her own money, the state has zero right to tell her what to do with her child.

Well as long as the hospital is happy with it, I agree.

thomez · 04-26-2007, 07:56 PM

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

what about old people?

specify the circumstances

7960 · 04-27-2007, 09:49 AM

Originally Posted by lew

Unless the mother has some sort of mental illness that doesn't allow her to think straight, it's her decision.

Originally Posted by lew

Because she is on Medicare, then the plug can be pulled. But if she were paying for it with her own money, the state has zero right to tell her what to do with her child.

is one of these sarcastic? because you can't say, and really mean, both.

7960 · 04-27-2007, 09:52 AM

Originally Posted by 03 white zx3

So it's a money issue then?

No. The issue is the hospital believes they're being asked to give a treatment that's torturing a child for no good reason. They'll give a kid chemo if they think it'll save his life, but this "treatment" is going to make this child live in the same state months longer and in constant pain.

7960 · 04-27-2007, 09:54 AM

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

what about old people?

what about them?

the law in texas doesn't specify that they can only pull the plug on infants....... depending on the situation they may be correct in pulling the plug on an older person.

Phantom · 04-27-2007, 10:09 AM

Originally Posted by 03 white zx3

So it's a money issue then?

IMO YES it is a money issue.

We have limited resources to help those in need, agreed? I hope so...

We should use those resources to help the most likely to benefit from any treatment given first, agreed?

I hope so.

Scrum · 04-27-2007, 10:57 AM

Originally Posted by Phantom

IMO YES it is a money issue.

We have limited resources to help those in need, agreed? I hope so...

We should use those resources to help the most likely to benefit from any treatment given first, agreed?

I hope so.

Public funds should be issued like triage.

You don't spend hours operating on someone who will not live without a miracle at the expense of people who can be saved.

lew · 04-27-2007, 11:05 AM

Originally Posted by 7960

is one of these sarcastic? because you can't say, and really mean, both.

I mean both.

IminWonderland · 04-27-2007, 11:21 AM

Originally Posted by JaJae

Keeping him on a machine is not allowing him to die naturally the way God intended. I don't think the hospital should be able to overstep the boundaries of the mother, but I also think the mother isn't thinking clearly.

I stopped reading at that line.

She's a grieving mother, but she might need some sense smacked into her.

A ventilator is not God's plan for dying. I'd ask her if she knew how long Jesus was on it before he rose?

And on the otherside, if she's a Christian, and she believes in that tenet, and her son is on his way out, what exactly is there to fear? He's going to heaven, with Jesus, and wouldn't that be what God wanted? And wouldn't the Ventilator be against God's plan then?

04-27-2007, 07:18 PM

Originally Posted by 7960

No. The issue is the hospital believes they're being asked to give a treatment that's torturing a child for no good reason. They'll give a kid chemo if they think it'll save his life, but this "treatment" is going to make this child live in the same state months longer and in constant pain.

I understand that, but I was specifically responding to Thomez's post regarding payment

Originally Posted by thomez
tell her she can keep the baby alive as long as she wants, but not on our dollar

05-20-2007, 10:44 PM

The child has died.
Toddler*in life-support*battle dies - CNN.com

motivez · 05-21-2007, 12:36 AM

Well, that sucks.. but everyone knew it was coming eventually.

I wonder if the challenge to the law will continue to be pursued even though their reason for doing so isn't there anymore?

kinggovernor · 05-21-2007, 07:36 AM

Originally Posted by motivez

Well, that sucks.. but everyone knew it was coming eventually.

I wonder if the challenge to the law will continue to be pursued even though their reason for doing so isn't there anymore?

I don't think they would have standing anymore