The European Union has "Death Panels" now.

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

How sick of Breitbart to exploit this story.

Why ?

Because they reported ?

What is "sick" is the "I own the child" attitude of the courts.

Why do you want this NOT reported ?

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: intrptr

"Switching off" life support so the baby dies of suffocation, 'naturally'. Its aiready 'in pain'.

How horrific. Imagine watching your baby go thru its death throws. Can't somebody euthanize it so it goes gently while asleep?

They treat pets better at the vet.

According to what some have already said, this is a child who is brain dead. So I am confused as to how it's actually suffering and in pain. What is there to feel pain? Again, let the therapy happen so the doctors doing it can learn what they can from the treatment on a child where there are very, very few stakes. It might benefit other children down the line.

I can't see how this is a whole lot different than donating organs ... except the government of the UK seems to know better.

The "in pain" part I got from other posters...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I can only surmise what that means as well. If its in some pain it cant be 'brain dead'.

originally posted by: intrptr

"Switching off" life support so the baby dies of suffocation, 'naturally'. Its aiready 'in pain'.

How horrific. Imagine watching your baby go thru its death throws. Can't somebody euthanize it so it goes gently while asleep?

They treat pets better at the vet.

No, there is no such thing as euthanasia in the UK and artificial attempts to hasten death are prosecuted as murder (which is what they are). The horrible situation that this creates is that it is illegal to intervene to 'smooth the passing', but completely legal to stop life support. One is the artificial cessation of life, which is forbidden, and the other is the artificial prolongation of life, which is allowed but not enforced.

a reply to: M5xaz

What is "sick" is the "I own the child" attitude of the courts.

No, this is a misunderstanding.

The courts have upheld the medical decision not to inflict unnecessary harm and suffering on a terminally-ill baby. It's a question of the baby's human rights and the interaction of those rights with medical ethics.

The courts have not asserted any 'ownership' of anyone. That is a ludicrous thing to suggest.

a reply to: audubon

No, there is no such thing as euthanasia in the UK and artificial attempts to hasten death are prosecuted as murder (which is what they are)

I know that was my point. Its illegal to kill someone but disconnecting life support is 'okay'.

Ever seen terminal patients in hospice? They disconnect 'life support' including nourishment and water. It takes some days to die of thirst.

originally posted by: intrptr
I know that was my point. Its illegal to kill someone but disconnecting life support is 'okay'.

Ever seen terminal patients in hospice? They disconnect 'life support' including nourishment and water. It takes some days to die of thirst.

I cannot do better than refer you to the seriously over-quotable George Orwell on that point:

There you are, then, I thought, that's what is waiting for you, twenty, thirty, forty years hence: that is how the lucky ones die, the ones who live to be old. One wants to live, of course, indeed one only stays alive by virtue of the fear of death, but I think now, as I thought then, that it's better to die violently and not too old. People talk about the horrors of war, but what weapon has man invented that even approaches in cruelty some of the commoner diseases? ‘Natural’ death, almost by definition, means something slow, smelly and painful.

Ironical, perhaps, since we started with talk of "Orwellian nonsense" and find ourselves in the arms of Orwellian sense.

There isn't really a happy ending to anyone's life. The best you can hope for is that it is quick when it comes, and that it doesn't come just yet.

For the Non Parents on ATS.....You dont know what its like to be a Parent, until you become a Parent.

The Love of your child goes Beyond anything non parents can comprehend.

This "Sun" article seems to sum it up well.

www.thesun.co.uk...

Charlie is now 10 Months Old....he is not a "little" baby. He has hair, he looks quite normal, and the parents have bonded with their baby....seeing him every minute they can....

In their mind, their baby is THEIR baby, their Love is beyond doubt, they obviously want the best for him.

The article suggests, they are aware of their child's terminal situation.

They want permission to take him Home, to be with them, EVEN if (when) he dies at home.......as loving parents, that is what is in their heart.

The Courts are denying the parents this gift........they want them to let the child to die in the hospital.

If the outcome is going to be as medical experts expect.....then let them take their child home....presumably to the bedroom they have prepared.....and allow them to cherish the last moments as a family, and grieve as a family together.....maybe with the inlaws, cousins etc etc around for support.

Let them say Goodbye to their child with dignity, and Love, at home.........its the Humane thing to do.

a reply to: gort51

They want permission to take him Home, to be with them, EVEN if (when) he dies at home.......as loving parents, that is what is in their heart.

Nope. Nope nopety nope. They want to remove their child from a life-support system (not just a machine) and take him halfway round the planet in order to undergo an experimental treatment that will not improve his lifespan by a millisecond. When the medics gently told them this was not going to happen, they went into denial and begged a million pounds from the public in order to do something that they already knew, via the court case, was never going to happen at all.

I'm sure they love what they think their child could be, if a miracle occurred. I am far from certain that they love the child that they have actually got.

a reply to: gort51

Bee-utiful.

Weird how the hospital wants the baby to die there.

What up with that?

The parents can contact a hospice and do it in home, should be no problem...

originally posted by: rickymouse
Depending on which form of mitochondrial depletion syndrome the baby has, determines how long the kid will live. I doubt if the experimental treatment will work. That is a very serious disease, I doubt if any experimental treatment invented so far will cure this kid. It may increase it's lifespan a little longer, but that may make it suffer longer.

.

Worth the suffering in the long run if there is but a shred of hope.

a reply to: audubon

There isn't really a happy ending to anyone's life. The best you can hope for is that it is quick when it comes, and that it doesn't come just yet.

Wen our dog died, she spent the night at the vet, went 'down' in the early am and they brought her back! Then called us and told us to hurry down there and we did. She was aware and suffering when we arrived, they had her hooked up to all kinds of bells and whistles and she recognized me when I entered the room.

I was kind of perplexed and straight away I said lets do this (euthanasia) to ease her pain, and they injected her while I held her. She very quickly went to sleep and about four minutes later she shuddered a little and was gone.

Her muscles let go, and that was that.

I couldn't imagine having disconnected her life support and letting her die again... the only humane thing was to put her 'asleep'.

We have this weird disconnect when it comes to people we also love. And babies my gosh, the most humane we can.

Who was that doctor, Kevorkian? He had the right idea. When the time comes, it comes. Everyone knows it.

originally posted by: lordcomac
On the one hand, I am all for natural selection- I'm getting pretty tired of people with weak ass genes procreating and creating children that can't survive in the very environment we evolved in. We need to get stronger as a population to survive- not weaker.


You have hit on an excellent point here.. But when times get lean, the folks who think like You, will not procreate and bring mouths to feed when times are hard and lean. The folks who don't think like You, doesn't faze them in the least because they weren't going to support them anyway..

Read, see all the time.. How tough it is, "We have kids to feed" If You can't feed Yourself, why would You bring another mouth to feed? It isn't like there are "Family Farms" anymore (The Waltons and Simplotts have purchased all those for the water rights...) Farms that needs 5 or 6 'hands' to drive the cattle to market..

Then You find out while the Folks that gave a crap for 20 years start getting "out-voted" by sheer numbers...

Evolution or Forced labor due to 'brain donors' traipsing about??


*** I apologize for NOT addressing the topic, but this has chapped My hide for a while *** I remember having to quit My cushy golf course job where I got to play Golf, then drink and gamble every night because My Lovely Wife was pregnant and couldn't provide a stable environment. Then I became a Cop in the ghetto and I remember early in My career I arrested a suspected culprit that I chased over 3 fences and then had to wrestle to get the cuffs on.
We get to the PD and I start the Arrest Report. He gives me His name and adds "Sr." e.g. Jacuezz Smith Sr.
He was 19 and occupation was "Disabled" (but not disabled enough to jump over fences and fight the cops) and He received $1375.00 month and was the "Father" of 4 kids w/2 different 'Baby's Mommas"

Thanks for letting Me get that off My chest, I again apologize...

originally posted by: intrptrI couldn't imagine having disconnected her life support and letting her die again... the only humane thing was to put her 'asleep'.

We have this weird disconnect when it comes to people we also love. And babies my gosh, the most humane we can.

Well, we place different values on the lives of animals and humans. Which is why killing an animal isn't murder, and killing a person is murder.

In principle, I feel that euthanasia feels morally right. But in practice, suddenly the system would be wide open to corruption. Ever heard the saying "Where there's a will, there's a motive"?

I don't know if US readers are aware of Harold Shipman, who was probably the most prolific serial killer in recorded history?

He was a General Practitioner in a typical English settlement, a neighbourhood doctor with a soothing bedside manner, and a dry sense of humour. He also quite enjoyed watching people die. Not in a violent, struggling, chaotic way. His MO was to visit elderly women on routine house calls, and every now and again he would take the opportunity to administer an injection. He probably told them all sorts of nonsense about what it was and why he was doing it. But he injected them with huge amounts of morphine, then sat and watched them die quietly and gently in their own armchairs.

And the great thing was, he was the one who got to diagnose the cause of death. Plenty of people thought it was odd that great-aunt Agatha had dropped off the twig when she had been right as rain the previous day. But because doctors of medicine are so respectable, it wasn't until Shipman bodged a forged "last will and testament" from one of his victims (in which he was the inheritor) that anyone raised the alarm.

Shipman was a "lone wolf" and over the course of his career he murdered at least 200 people in this way. If he hadn't screwed up that forgery, he might never have been caught.

Given the Shipman case, I think my personal attitude towards euthanasia is irrelevant. Society is right to prevent doctors from having this power, given the potential for serious harm to individuals and for irreparable damage to civil society.

a reply to: Logarock

I doubt if there is a shred of hope with this disease. I actually studied it a while back and it was one of not too many that there is no hope of future with. In twenty years maybe a treatment may be available for this, but that is long past how long this kid will suffer. I doubt if there is any hope with this, but I can always be wrong. Not every baby is going to live, we have a lot better success rate now than we used to have. I may complain about them fudging life expectancy by using babies survival rate, but I am happy that more babies are living these days. My granddaughter is having a baby, I pray it will be healthy when it is born.

a reply to: audubon

I saw an in-depth documentary on Shipman. He was a serial killer. Enjoyed it. You're right we treat our pets differently, god knows why.

To me its hypocritical.

a reply to: audubon

Replying twice.

In principle, I feel that euthanasia feels morally right. But in practice, suddenly the system would be wide open to corruption.

We do it to criminals here. They are put to sleep before being euthanized. Ostensibly so they don't suffer.... ?

I mentioned Kevorkian, he put a few to sleep very humanely. This is all cut up, but reflects the idea of what I'm talking about.

originally posted by: intrptr
We do it to criminals here. They are put to sleep before being euthanized. Ostensibly so they don't suffer.... ?

Given the recent controversy over the drugs used in fatal injections, I'm not sure that this reflects what's going on in the penal system. One state has just decided to do away with lethal injection and has opted for firing squads instead.

But the only reason that prisoners were ever tranquilised before being executed was that whole prohibition of 'cruel and unusual punishment' thing.

Given the various unreconstructed 18th Century attitudes that still exist across America, I am willing to bet cold hard cash that if public hanging were reintroduced tomorrow, there would be souvenir models of gallows in the shops by the day after!

a reply to: IAMTAT

Apparently the baby only has days to live now that the courts refused him to travel to receive the treatment in the US. After the court case los,s the parents wanted to take the baby back to their family home so that he could die in the comfort of his own home but that has been denied as well.

My heart goes out to these parents.

originally posted by: lordcomac
On the other other hand, I live in the US and I've had "health care" here- £1 Million might not go as far as they think.

It's a new experimental treatment so I'd imagine the Drug Company would provide the treatment free of charge. I assumed the $$$ was for the parents accommodation and special medical flight. Some genetic disorders &c are so rare it's hard to find participants with the right credentials to be involved and prove or disprove their medications so they'd fund it all

a reply to: Kalixi

They're turning the life support off this morning. Imagine it? We're all getting ready for work, school, college and these guys are waiting to see their little boy off. One of the worst soul-screaming moments in anyone's life and that's their day...and tomorrow and next month...

Makes life seem incredibly important and our petty little differences meaningless.