It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Allowing deformed babies to die from dehydration, why?

page: 3
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in


posted on Nov, 29 2012 @ 10:07 PM
I'm not sure how peds ICU does it, but the word from the youngest Bedlam, Billy, is that it is not atypical for ICUs to have a "end of life/palliative care" order set.

Once you strip all the euphemisms away, it's a carefully arranged means for the nurse to put the patient to sleep in a proper, painless manner, with a minimum of discomfort for either the family or the pre-decedent.

The variables are many, but the biggest ones are - one, do you get a nurse that understands the implications of the order set, two, do you have a doctor that will write it.

It's a humane thing. Basically they give you something to dry up secretions, pain reliever (morphine drip, usually) and an ativan drip. If the patient's gorked, you extubate them, wait for them to shut down. If they don't, you watch the family closely. When everyone's said goodbye, there will be a sort of empty pause, the first one will come out and ask how long it's going to take for Grampy to pass (as if anyone could know) but it's a hint that they're all ready for it to conclude. So you program the pump to wait a few minutes and go to the order max limit, and leave the room.

15 minutes pass, the pump steps up the ativan, down goes grampy in one of those Hollywood eyes-closed, one last sigh expirations and voila, it's over on cue. And since you're not in the room when it happens, you can maintain the pretense that you didn't do it.

If the patient's still with it but dying hard, it's a bit more touchy. Generally the patient will ask for it to conclude at some point. If they're with it but sailing away peacefully, you just do pain control and let 'em go at their own rate. I have seen Billy drunk after the guy asks to speak with the nurse alone and runs the family out, then asks Billy if he can get it over with. It's one reason he's getting out of the field into CRNA. I might add that Billy has a collection of dogs where the family was going to put the dog to sleep after Grampy died and Grampy's second to last request to Billy was not to let his best friend get murdered by the family.

When it gets real bad is when the patient is with it and dying hard and no one will write for anything, then they lie there and choke and struggle and fight, with whites all around their eyes, all terrified and miserable, and it goes on for hours and hours. Days sometimes. An idiot nurse or coward doctor is not your friend at the end.

My brothers are sworn to end it for me, personally, and I have provided the wherewithal. Not sure if they will, but if not I'll haunt the crap out of them.

Can you imagine what it must be like to have a child you know will die? Can't make it? But will go on for a few years with no quality of life at all? I am glad I'm past the kids stage and mine are all ok. It would be butt-awful to be in grief for years like that.
edit on 29-11-2012 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 29 2012 @ 10:35 PM
just wait a few years, this will be the norm under obamacare.

obama did vote for this very same thing as a state senator.

democrat voters own this too....

posted on Nov, 29 2012 @ 10:58 PM

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

It costs money every time you even think about a lawyer.

Yes it was neglect, but in their defense.... I was in the way of their inevitable goal.

I am ahead of the curve, what happens to me happens to the general public years later. you will ALL endure this kind of result with a family member.

posted on Nov, 30 2012 @ 04:12 AM
reply to post by Afterthought

This would not surprise me. in this country, there are places where a baby born alive, after a "failed" abortion, can be left to die, alone in a room. The guy sitting at 1600 voted in support of that evil behavior, too.

Why? Because they are evil and have no respect for life?

posted on Nov, 30 2012 @ 08:46 AM
reply to post by LadyGreenEyes

Right! Let's blame the guy in the White House for practices that have been going on since time began. Would it be more humane to set these infants out in the woods for the wolves to devour, as many cultures have done in the past?

In the meantime people are actually addressing the problem, without the urgent disgust of your empty vitriol!

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

In the meantime, your good ole GOP boys are plotting ways to make sure more sick babies like this will be born, or be aborted late in order to save the mother's life. iagnoses/

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'

posted on Nov, 30 2012 @ 08:50 AM
reply to post by Unity_99

If the child's condition is life threatening then they will pass away with love, food and attention.


posted on Nov, 30 2012 @ 09:31 AM
reply to post by Afterthought

I'm glad you put this up!!

No joke, my wife is in the hospital right now and 24 weeks pregnant... her first pregnancy was perfect.. no issues. this time around her cervix is dynamic and opens up.. so they are keeping her until the baby comes.

Yesterday, while i was getting her stuff together so she could be comfy in the hospital, I get a call from my wife and she puts me on speaker with two doctors... They started telling us of the risks of having a baby this early and told us we would have to decide if they take care of the baby or not... I didn't know they starve the baby, I thought they just dont resuscitate if everything goes sideways.

They told us the baby right now until week 26 only has a 1/3 chance of being normal... for me that's too low. Before anyone calls me insensitive, my brother had Cerebral Palsy and growing up my childhood was really hard and emotionally draining. He died at 19. I don't want to bury my own child, I saw what it did to my mother and know what it did to me.

Now reading this, I am again lost and unsure of what the right thing to do is....

Its either let the child suffer for X amount of years as a prisoner in a defective body and then bury my child...

or let the child suffer for a week and bury them sooner.

How does one choose? How can you live with yourself with either decision as in my mind both are right and both are wrong.

Honestly, anyone who doesn't have a child or hasn't experienced caring for a disabled young person really shouldn't have an opinion.

posted on Nov, 30 2012 @ 09:39 AM
'Death Pathways'.

That's really effing sweet, isn't it?

Not only are the fascists killing us, but they are giving the murder a nice little name.

posted on Nov, 30 2012 @ 09:49 AM
reply to post by Whatsreal

My heart goes out to you and your wife as well as your unborn child. This is never easy as you well know from your experience with your brother.

I'm sure the doctors are only telling you and your wife about the risks involved because it would be irresponsible and unprofessional to do otherwise. The medical community has made leaps and bounds in the care of premature babies, so I'm sure if the child is healthy, things can be done to make sure that he/she is taken care of and can come home when it doesn't require a special environment and care.

I'm curious though about how the doctors stated that the baby MAY have something wrong with it. Are they going to do any tests such as an amnio to detect any defects?

Being born with problems isn't easy in this world and you have some tough choices to make. I was lucky to have been born with a medium grade of Spina bifida, but I'm now 34 and probably won't live to see 60. People born with complications usually age much more quickly as I've recently found out that my kidneys are functioning as though I'm 45. It's just not fair, but that's the way it goes. Sometimes I wish that my parents wouldn't have found the best doctors, but I've had a pretty good life and can't fault them for wanting to do all they could to make me as "right" as possible.

I wish the best for you and hope all turns out well. If it doesn't, you'll know what to do when the time comes. In the meantime, I'd find a good lawyer that specializes in medical law. I think it's different in each state, but a lawyer usually has to take on 3-5 pro bono cases per year as stipulated in their license requirments.
Chin up! Positive thoughts are on their way and the angels are there watching whether you know it or not.

posted on Nov, 30 2012 @ 10:06 AM
reply to post by bjax9er

just wait a few years, this will be the norm under obamacare.

You're unfortunately very correct with that simple statement! Hard to believe it took 3 pages before someone said the obvious.

A very sad situation indeed, as I've had the opportunity to live in several countries and see the devastation and needless casualties under a National Healthcare Plan.

I do realize that some of this is going on in the United States at this time, but its nothing compared to what is coming and the situations in other countries under this system.

edit on 30-11-2012 by magycpapyri because: edited to add quote

posted on Nov, 30 2012 @ 10:36 AM

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.

Do you not realize how insane this is? Starving people to death is not harming them? Think about it for a second......euthanasia would be much less harm.

posted on Nov, 30 2012 @ 10:47 AM
Let them die. It's pure selfishness on the part of family members that would want to see such a thing continue on.

Quit worrying about yourself for five seconds and consider what it means to have no brain, or live being kept alive by machines.

Things without a brain have no purpose.

People relying 100% on life support aren't truly alive. The only reason people consider this a issue is because of their own worries of guilt.

If you cared about a person in this condition than you would let them die, the way nature intended.

I've never know anyone to say, if they were brain dead they wanted to be kept on life support for 5 years.

Stop being so full of yourselves as to think everyone can, and should be saved.

edit on 30-11-2012 by Chargeit because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 30 2012 @ 11:06 AM
reply to post by Chargeit

You're way off topic.
This thread isn't about keeping them alive or not. It's about how why they're being inhumanely starved and dehydrated to death. Please read through all the comments before replying again.
Thank you.

posted on Nov, 30 2012 @ 12:02 PM
Here's some more info about this horrific practice.

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.

Another source:

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 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.

Quite frightening to think that they've been making these decisions without the loved ones' approvals for quite some time now.

posted on Nov, 30 2012 @ 01:10 PM
My heart weeps for all the beautiful babies that never had a fighting chance against the evil of the outside world. This society is so sick and wrong.. My thoughts and wishes go out to all the mommies and daddies that have been conned into this sick practice.

C'mon apocalypse, end our pathetically sick and twisted existence.. (Sarcasm of course)

posted on Nov, 30 2012 @ 01:12 PM
Oh god reading over the article almost made me throw up. I cannot believe people draw fluids from the babies so they shrink and die. :'( That's enough internet for me today.

posted on Nov, 30 2012 @ 01:59 PM
Firstly it is correct to bring this to ATS because it has no proof. Secondly, aborted babies are tossed into buckets some still alive so the practice would not surprise me... and that I do have proof of as I have pics and video of it happening.

You need evidence or it's just speculation like 90% of posts on ATS

posted on Nov, 30 2012 @ 02:08 PM
In 2010 my wife had our second child. No issues detected in utero. A c section was in order due to blood clot risks. As soon as the doctor pulled him out there were issues. His skin was nearly as black as the keyboard I am typing on and they could not get him to breath. Using a manual breathing bag they got air into him and put a cpap mask on him then took him to NICU. Later he had a breathing tube in his nose. Each time he was fed he would puke it up. Tests showed he was born with a malrotation of the inner organs. He had surgery to correct it at two weeks old leaving a scar from below the naval to the sternum. A feeding tube was given to him while he recovered and meds issues intravenously. He was susceptible to infection further complicating things. The infection spread causing him to swell up. Diuretics did nothing. At one month I got a call at wok to hurry to the hospital.

When i arrived I was informed the infection had increased overnight and his organs were swelled to the point the flesh on his torso could not stretch any more. They found some fluid which they hoped to remove which might reduce the swelling. If not we had two choices. Cut his stomach open and let the organs continue swelling outward covering them with bandages which would almost guarantee more infection and kill him or let the swelling continue which would crush his lungs and kill him. My normally rational mind was hearing "Which way do you want your kid to die." I felt as if the world had been turned upside down and it was up to me to hold it on my shoulders. I collapsed into a chair crying. Thankfully removing the fluid did the job.

For the next couple of months he needed the breathing tube. His body would not maintain oxygen levels without it and when the tube was removed he would convulse. They found the trachial structure was not developed strong enough and without the tube his air pipe would collapse when he tried to breath. He still would not take in food. He was now receiving nutrients intravenously as well.

At five months old he was sent to Childrens Hospital Boston to see a gastral intestinal specialist. They found his organs would clench to push food down but would not release to allow for more food. Anything he tried to ingest barely passed his throat. Upon coming back to Vermont he contracted another infection due to a dirty IV. (Changed every two weeks, the veins they use bruise and being so young take weeks to heal) This one came and went with much more trouble than the previous one.

Another infection came, we were running out of veins to put new lines in. The infection swelled up again and we were asked by the doctors to consider his ability to survive and what kind of life he will have if he did survive. With a heavy heart we agreed that if another infection came we would not treat it. He would be made comforatble and no nutrients or antibiotics would be given. It was not the name of the procedure in the OP but same concept. So for the second time we had to choose how our sons life would end.

In April his central line was already two weeks pass due. We received a call after coming home from the hospital that they had found a vein they though would support a new line and were asked if we wanted to proceed even though we agreed not too already. Of course we said yes. The next morning we went up and were informed it was too late. They already saw signs of a new infection. Finally on may 9th we were informed it might be time to say good bye. The infection was certainly going to do him in. Rather than wait and let him suffer we opted to take him off the oxygen machine. For the third time we had made a decision on his life, this time more prepared for it. Doctors boosted him up to 100% oxygen for a moment hoping to give us some extra time alone. His body lasted 37 seconds.

Our situation was rare but not unheard of. The choice to no longer treat the illness at hand and stop nutrients was a reasonable one for us. His body was weak and without machines and medicine he would not have survived at all. Ending his life was something we will both regret and accept for the rest of our lives. The emotional and financial turmoil we went through is something I wish no other person to deal with. Trying to live 3 at home with out other child, one at the hospital and one at work.

The choice to follow this procedure is a challenging one. But at times, the right one.

whatsreal, I hope you and your wife turn out all right. If you need someone to speak to feel free to PM me.

posted on Nov, 30 2012 @ 11:24 PM

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: j73D

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)

I'm pretty certain its because human euthanization is not legal. If they inject the infant, they're directly euthanize. If they stop "life support" ... it's not illegal given consent. Thats my take.

posted on Nov, 30 2012 @ 11:44 PM
reply to post by Ryanssuperman

Or you can make them so "comfortable" they just pass on, or at least that's how they sell it for Grampy.

IIRC, for the adult order set, you can give 10mg a minute of morphine, and/or 60 mg an hour of Ativan. I could put YOU to sleep with that. I wish it was legally and socially acceptable to just ask for a big shot of euthanasia med when you get to your end.

<< 1  2    4 >>

log in