It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Court Ordered Euthenasia In UK

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 15 2009 @ 05:52 PM
link   
The title is a little catchy, the story is as well and poses a great question.

Here's the article:


London, England (CNN) -- A severely ill toddler at the center of a legal battle between his parents has died days after his father agreed to switch off his ventilator.

The 13-month-old boy, known as Baby RB, suffered from congenital myasthenic syndrome, a rare genetic condition that means he cannot breathe on his own.

Cristopher Cuddihee, a solicitor who represents the father, confirmed the baby's death early Sunday but did not provide any more details.

The baby's father had been battling his mother and the hospital in London's High Court because they wanted the child's life support switched off "in his best interests." He disagreed, saying the baby could play and recognize his parents. The father withdrew his objection Tuesday and allowed the ventilator to be switched off.

The hospital defended its stance in a statement last week, saying the baby's birth defect "causes severe muscle weakness, feeding and respiratory problems, and the disease is progressive."

Baby RB's lungs filled with fluid every few hours, giving him the sensation he is choking and causing the child to suffer, lawyers representing the hospital said in court November 2.

Ultimately, the father agreed with the mother and the hospital that the best thing was for the baby to die "in a planned way, with the administration of a large dose of sedative, the removal of the ventilation tube and his consequent death," Judge Andrew McFarlane said Tuesday.

The baby's parents, who are separated, cannot be named because of a court order protecting their privacy.


Source

Now they didn't simply remove him from the respirator, they have him a lethal dose of sedative as well. This begs the question, should people who CHOOSE to die, be afforded that right by doctors or hospitals in cases of extreme trauma or otherwise terminal situations?

I know personally that if I were to be diagnosed with a Stage 4 Stomach Cancer and KNEW for a fact that I would die in 6 months, but those months I would be bed ridden and in extreme pain, I would want to die and get it over with.

Why suffer for no reason?

And I don't know the law in the UK surrounding this, but I assume it's illegal unless court ordered or approved.

Thoughts folks?

~Keeper




posted on Nov, 15 2009 @ 05:58 PM
link   
The right to die initiative was big here in oregon in the united states. It was voted in, had an injunction passed on it, and then finally cleared. I stopped keeping up with it after a while.

I am sadly uninformed about the laws in the u.k.

The hemlock society would be a place to start for information.



posted on Nov, 15 2009 @ 06:10 PM
link   
Euthanasia is the wrong term.

The court case was about removing care for the poor child, the sedatives were administered to relieve his suffering as he died, not to actually bring about his death.

A truly tragic story.

Here is an interview with his mother.

[edit on 15/11/2009 by Argyll]



posted on Nov, 15 2009 @ 06:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Argyll
Euthanasia is the wrong term.

The court case was about removing care for the poor child, the sedatives were administered to relieve his suffering as he died, not to actuall bring about his death.

A truly tragic story.

Here is an interview with his mother.



definition
eu·tha·na·sia (yo̵̅o̅′t̸hə nā′z̸hə, -z̸hē ə, -zē ə)

noun

Now Rare an easy and painless death
act or practice of causing death painlessly, so as to end suffering: advocated by some as a way to deal with persons dying of incurable, painful diseases


Source

Nope I am pretty sure that's the right word all right.

In any case it is a sad and tragic story, and I am not saying what they did was wrong, I would have made the same choice, it's hard to see any child suffer, especially your own.

~Keeper



posted on Nov, 15 2009 @ 06:32 PM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 


I'm sorry mate, but I stand by my disagreement, euthanasia is the act of causing death, usually by the administration of a drug (most commonly morphine) ........I think the correct term is "passive euthanasia" which is the withdrawal of treatment.

And I agree with you it is a tragic story and as heartbreaking as it is , I would have done the same thing.



posted on Nov, 15 2009 @ 06:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Argyll
 


I like the Passive Euthansia, and I would have agreed with you if they had not administered any drugs and allowed the child to "naturally" die after being taken off life support.

Since the ladder has occured however...

In any case, what do you think of my thoughts above regarding euthanasia, are you for or against?

~Keeper



posted on Nov, 15 2009 @ 06:37 PM
link   
I followed this on the news, its a sad story, but that baby was concious, there was reports of him laughing (kinda) and playing with nurses. This wasn't euthinasia, this was legalised murder.



posted on Nov, 15 2009 @ 06:38 PM
link   
From what I can see of this, no lethal drug was administered. It is common to use a sedative in people who have severe problems with breathing, to alleviate the sense of suffocation. This was palliative, not fatal. What was fatal was removing the ventilator from the child. The child could not breathe on his own, so ultimately he died.

This is a sad and difficult issue, but this child never had a chance at life. With the most meticulous care, this child could not have lived a normal life. He would have spent his life suffocating and being rescued from that, constantly, until infection or exhaustion eventually killed him. Or until he suffocated. He couldn't breathe without assistance, and never would have been able to. He'd never be able to walk, sit up, eat normally, swallow, etc.

There comes a time when you have to let go. This was such a time.



posted on Nov, 15 2009 @ 06:41 PM
link   
The law regarding euthanasia is quite odd in the UK. There's a clinic in sweden that accepts patients from the UK for euthanasia, the family/friends who accompany the person always get warned that they could be tried for murder when they arrive back in the UK, but it never seems to happen. Turning a blind eye to some degree maybe.

I suppose this case would only be classed as euthanasia though if it was the dose of sedative that ended the childs life. The large dose of sedatives could just have been intended to make sure the child had zero awareness of not being able to breathe after the ventilator tube was taken out.

And I could be wrong, but I think dosing people up on sedatives is quite a usual thing to do near death, well for cancer patients it is anyway. Either way, its good that they used them in this case so that the poor kid wasnt in any distress once the ventilator tube had been removed. Cant imagine how bad the parents must be feeling, especially with having to go through a court case


Also... I wish the UK would change its sodding laws when it comes to euthanasia. If it was legal there would obviously have to be some mega tight regulations to follow, but I dont see why someone should be kept alive just for the sake of being alive when they have a terrible quality of life.

[edit on 15/11/09 by Bluebelle]



posted on Nov, 15 2009 @ 06:46 PM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 


I'm most definitely for euthanasia mate.

@ Butterflycatcher.....you should really read the link I put in my earlier post, it is an interview with baby RB's mother.......read that and then spout your cr#p about legalised murder!



posted on Nov, 15 2009 @ 06:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Bluebelle
 


Alright then I understand why not it would not classed specifically as Euthenasia. I figured the Sedative was to just get to job done, but I can see why they would have given it to him due to the 0 awareness thing.

And that Sweden clinic I have heard about, quite sad that people have to go to another country to find peace.

I have a friend who tried to kill himself here in Canada a few years ago, he failed and they pressed charges of attempted murder, later dropped to manslaughter and he spent 9 months in Jail over trying to take his OWN life.

Strange world we live in.

~Keeper



posted on Nov, 15 2009 @ 06:53 PM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 


WHAT!!.....You can be charged with murder in Canada if you try to take your own life???



posted on Nov, 15 2009 @ 06:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Argyll
 


Yes, and also in the states. Suicide is very illegal in many places.

I have to agree with the sedative here, there's no reason the child should suffer in the end. These decisions are always hard for everyone....and the courts always make it harder on everyone involved it seems.



posted on Nov, 15 2009 @ 07:00 PM
link   
reply to post by butterflycatcher
 


This Child was suffering, could not in any way communicate with anyone, the Father was fighting a court case where Doctors and the Child's Mother where asking to end the Child's suffering.

The Father was fighting because he thought the Child had shown signs of understanding and laughter, but was shown evidence that what can be conceived as a smile can also be a sign of severe pain, like a baby with wind will seem to smile, having wind hurts.

Because they could in no way tell if the Child was in pain, and the fact the Child was paralyzed, and many other symptoms, Doctors , Nurses,a nd relatives who all looked after this Baby all said the Child was suffering.

After the Father had heard the evidence from every one involved, he also decided this was the right thing to do, how it was done I am certain was to ease any suffering at all, I have been on a respirator as have many others, and it is not at all a comfortable experience, having it removed and being unable to breath is a nightmare of the worst kind.

There is and always will be a very fine line between suffering, and being allowed to end that suffering, for Adults it is clear what their wishes are, for a Toddler who will be their voice? who can look into their eyes and understand what they want?

The parents of this Child now have to live for the rest of their lives wondering if it was the right call, I believe the right thing was done, as do many many others, my thoughts are with the Mother and Father, who had to make a decision to take the life of their Child, because they could not live with the thought of even a moment of suffering, never mind a lifetime.

Whether it was Murder is down to individual opinion, IMO it was done with Love and with Mercy, how hard must it be to love someone enough to let them go.



posted on Nov, 15 2009 @ 07:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Argyll
 


Yup, according to Canadian Law if you take your own life and fail, you are an murderer of some sorts.

It's very strange, and doesn't happen very often.

~Keeper



posted on Nov, 15 2009 @ 07:00 PM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 


Yes its very sad. Makes it even worse that the person wanting to end their life has to deal with the guilt of knowing that whoever accompanies them could get charged with murder.



posted on Nov, 15 2009 @ 07:04 PM
link   
You can't save everyone. Sometimes you just have to let it go. Considering the end result, ironically the phrase "that's life" sums it up.

The child would have suffered the rest of his life until this condition eventually took it's toll. There is nothing in life - particularly the life he would have had ahead of him - that would be worth the suffering. Ultimately the cons outweighed the pros.

I feel the court, the hospital, and the parents made the right decision here, for the kid's sake.

[edit on 11/15/09 by NovusOrdoMundi]



posted on Nov, 15 2009 @ 07:10 PM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 


I am gob smacked!......do they not consider underlying reasons?....are people that are so desperate, that they attempt to take their own lives not given care?, and help??.........they are just considered to be murderers???



posted on Nov, 15 2009 @ 07:26 PM
link   
Why do the people who administer the drugs because of the consent of another person think they are not murderer's?
Thats like the government bringing in a law to say ok everyone we give you consent to kill eachother but it still ends up as murder.
Just because the person thinks its the right thing to do does not make it right and is still murder.
I wonder what emotions not just for the family and the person who got ill but the person who administers their death.
The doctor who does abortion is still a murderer.

This is just my deep thoughts on this. Your profession wont save you from being a murderer.

The deep impact of giving professionals the green light can actually cause a severe and dangerous implication for the whole human race. If we give our consent to 1 or 2 different consensual murder scenarios then we are agreeing infact to the depopulation of humans.

Its like the elite are saying ok lets give professionals the consent to do murder so that we dont look as bad and they can be just like us and cause they are professionals people will believe its in the best interest of those they kill. Then elite turn around to humanity and say but hey you agreed to our depopulation tricks.





[edit on 15-11-2009 by Applesandoranges]



posted on Nov, 15 2009 @ 07:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Applesandoranges
Why do the people who administer the drugs because of the consent of another person think they are not murderer's?
Thats like the government bringing in a law to say ok everyone we give you consent to kill eachother but it still ends up as murder.
Just because the person thinks its the right thing to do does not make it right and is still murder.
I wonder what emotions not just for the family and the person who got ill but the person who administers their death.
The doctor who does abortion is still a murderer.

This is just my deep thoughts on this. Your profession wont save you from being a murderer.

The deep impact of giving professionals the green light can actually cause a severe and dangerous implication for the whole human race. If we give our consent to 1 or 2 different consensual murder scenarios then we are agreeing infact to the depopulation of humans.


Wow, whats it like living in a world where everythings black & white?

Its not murder at all. In this case the child would have passed away due to natural causes i.e. the condition it had.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join