It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
the decision is made by doctors and a family member,they cannot just decide to refuse your mother food and water, it is called neglect,but with a family member gives their ok that is the only time the nursing home hospital can do this
Why do they think it's OK to do this?
Originally posted by Afterthought
This is going to be a short Op because I have no proof to offer. This is all speculation on my part, but this must be discussed. Especially with all the genetic engineering and organ donation situations, I feel this deserves a meeting of the minds.
I just finished reading this very sad article about how parents who give birth to babies with congenital birth defects are told by their doctors that their babies will most likely not survive. The parents are then pursuaded to sign paperwork for an End of Life Plan, or a Death Pathway. As soon as the parents sign, the doctors stop feeding and giving the baby water. The child dehydrates and death takes hold after an agonizing ten days (typically).
Here is the article:
Now, here is where my conspiratorial mind kicked in. Why allow this painful death when the doctors could simply inject an overdose of barbituates as we do when we have to put our beloved pets down?
My theory is that the barbituates would damage/contaminate the tissues/cells and render them useless when they that could be saved and provided to other patients or used for genetic experiments. Starving and dehydrating the cells would still preserve them for use later.
Plus, since it takes the child approximately ten days to succumb, this is more than enough time for the doctors to find a suitable donor or sell the tissues to a lab.
There's lots of money in organ donations and genetic experimentation. Are we seeing this here?
Are doctors causing suffering because they are thinking of the money they're going to receive when it would be much more humane to give the poor baby an injection of powerful drugs so they could simply fall asleep peacefully?
Thanks for reading.edit on 29-11-2012 by Afterthought because: (no reason given)
Theyll also tell you anencephalics only survive hrs.. many survive YEARS.
Should Dying Babies Be Organ Donors?
As many as half of the approximately 1,500 children waiting for organ transplants each year die before donors can be found. The shortage of donors has led to calls for permitting the organs of children born with the birth defect anencephaly to be donated before the children die. The issue has proved controversial, as doctors and medical ethicists debate the legality and morality of allowing the harvesting of organs from a person who is not legally dead.
Finally, proponents note the shortage of organs for transplantation in children. Because of this shortage, many children die who might otherwise live a normal life if given a transplant. Some experts believe that using organs from anencephalic infants could mean up to an additional three hundred transplants a year. Faced with this prospect, proponents contend that society's interests are advanced by making a narrow exception to the dead donor rule.
Opponents are horrified at the idea of removing organs from a living infant. They contend that the dead donor rule is an important boundary in medical science. Crossing this line in the case of anencephalic infants, they contend, will cause a "slippery slope" effect. Physicians might ask to harvest organs from coma victims or from children with other severe, but nonfatal brain defects. Opponents argue that blurring the definition of brain death will have detrimental consequences to society greater than the benefit of obtaining organs from several hundred infants each year.
The new regulations angered a number of states and hospitals. The state of Wisconsin, the University of Wisconsin Hospitals, and Froedert Memorial Lutheran Hospital filed a lawsuit in federal district court, claiming that the regulations would severely reduce the number of organs available to their patients. The plaintiffs alleged that the HHS lacked legislative authority to broaden the regional organ sharing networks. In addition, the plaintiffs claimed that the regulations would injure the hospitals financially because they would have to pay a larger amount of the transplantation network's operating costs. However, in an unpublished decision, a federal district court in Wisconsin dismissed the case because the plaintiffs lacked standing to file the lawsuit.
The editorial reads, "Under the laws of every state and under prevailing medical ethics, human organs cannot be removed for transplant until the donor is legally dead. There is a good rationale for this: to prevent abuses. But every rule needs an exception, and one is warranted in the tragic cases of anencephalic newborns. Anencephaly is a congenital birth defect in which the infant is born without a forebrain and a cerebrum, but is able to survive for a short time with a brain stem that permits breathing, sucking, and other autonomic functions. Without higher brain functions, they can never experience consciousness, thoughts, emotions, pain, or anything remotely resembling a human being. Few survive more than a few days, yet their organs cannot be used to fill the desperate need for transplants to other infants because the organs deteriorate badly if doctors must wait for natural death to occur."
Are you following this? We're talking about a severely handicapped individual with a brain stem, automatic responses, but no cognitive functions. This is a tragic circumstance, but the infants are now protected by law because they are human beings who are alive. The law disallows them for being used as donors of their organs because in the process of having their organs taken from them they are killed.
If you recall in 1992, Baby Theresa in Florida was the subject of a lot of discussion and a court decision regarding this very issue. The court ruled to protect the child because the child was not dead yet. I did a commentary at the time called "I'm Not Dead Yet."
If we follow this guideline that is offered in the editorial, the question then is, How handicapped does a human have to be before she can be used as an organ farm? That's really the question.