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.
Originally posted by jasmine23
reply to post by JibbyJedi
If they deprived your mother of care without your permission are a family member in charge of her care then yes that is all out neglect and should have been reported to the state that runs the nursing home,so that was not right i agree, i don't know ,you know when you work in a nursing home and you are a aide you are just the care giver we have no choice but to do what the nursing home says even if we feel different we are just peons
As prenatal testing becomes increasingly routine, more parents are learning devastating news before their babies are born. In too many places, the ability to diagnose has raced ahead of the ability to care for these families and their babies. But in a beautiful and practical response, 150 pioneering hospitals, hospices, and clinics in the U.S. and around the world are now providing perinatal hospice/palliative care for families who wish to continue their pregnancies with babies who likely will die before or shortly after birth.
A perinatal hospice approach walks with these families on their journey through pregnancy, birth, and death, honoring the baby as well as the baby's family. Perinatal hospice is not a place; it is more a frame of mind. It is a way of caring for the pregnant mother, the baby, the father, and all involved with dignity and love. Even in areas without a formal program, parents can create a loving experience for themselves and their baby, and health professionals and family and friends can offer support in the spirit of hospice
Legislating Lies: Kansas and Other States Pass Laws Permitting Doctors to Lie to Pregnant Patients About Prenatal Diagnoses
The ongoing war on reproductive rights in the United States is so sweeping that I’m constantly uncovering a new facet of it, appalling in its grossness and determination to strip pregnant people of all individual freedom and autonomy. Odd, coming from conservatives who claim to want smaller government; evidently tight governmental controls are perfectly acceptable when it comes to people who can get pregnant, who will clearly run into trouble if allowed to make their own medical decisions.
Or, it turns out, receive factually correct information about their diagnoses. In Kansas, there’s a clause buried in an anti-choice bill that would absolve doctors of legal liability if they lie to patients about prenatal diagnoses. That means that an anti-abortion doctor could receive test results and decide not to pass them on, or lie about their nature, which means that pregnant patients might not find out about fetal abnormalities until they become dangerously ill late in pregnancy, or until delivery, when they learn that the baby has significant health problems'
just wait a few years, this will be the norm under obamacare.
Originally posted by Erowynn
It is because doctors take an oath to "first do no harm." Obviously euthanizing an infant would be causing it harm. For this same reason doctors do not euthanize death-row inmates.
In birth defects like anencephaly, the child is born without a brain or with an extremely malformed one. They cannot feel pain. There is no cure and the prognosis is almost always death. So starving/dehydrating an infant in this case is actually the most humane option, if that makes any sense. The same thing is done with brain dead and terminal cancer patients.
A new BMA report also suggests hearts could be taken from newborn babies for the first time and body parts could be used from high-risk donors.
A Department of Health spokesman said: “Any action taken prior to death must be in the patient’s best interests.
"Anything that places the person at risk of serious harm or distress is unlikely to ever be in the person’s best interests.”
The BMA said it welcomed recent increases in organ donation, but wanted more action, including a switch to an opt-out system, where everyone would be assumed to be a willing organ donor unless they explicitly said otherwise.
Dr. Paul Byrne, an experienced neonatologist, clinical professor of pediatrics at the University of Toledo, and president of Life Guardian Foundation, said he was not surprised at the recent statements, which he said merely reflect a long-open secret in the organ donation field.
“All of the participants in organ transplantation know that the donors are not truly dead,” Byrne told LifeSiteNews.com in a telephone interview Tuesday.
“How can you get healthy organs from a cadaver? You can’t.”
Byrne affirmed that giving pain medication to organ donors is routine. Doctors taking organs from brain-dead donors “have to paralyze them so they don’t move so when they cut into them to take organs, and when they paralyze them without anesthetics, their heart rate goes up and their blood pressure goes up,” he observed. “This is not something that happens to someone who’s truly dead.”
The neonatologist said he has personally studied the theory of “brain death” since 1975, seven years after the first vital organ transplant in 1968, and has found that death criteria has continually been changed to accommodate a demand for fresh organs. The idea of a “dead donor rule” did not even emerge until the 1980s, he said, and didn’t enter common parlance until years later.
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)