Anti -Vaxxer Named Health Secretary
News2 mins ago
The parents of a brain-damaged baby at the centre of a battle over her right to life are to try again to overturn a court order not to resuscitate her.
Charlotte Wyatt, according to the doctors treating her, is in constant pain, has serious brain, lung and kidney damage, and will never be able to breathe by herself for long periods.
However, now her parents are appealing again, saying that she has made remarkable progress and is responding to bright images and noise.
This is a heart-wrenching case, but what is the 'right' outcome? Is there one?
No best answer has yet been selected by georgit79. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.Personally I feel that without the full medical evidence, none of us is in a position to comment on the 'right' outcome. Either way there will be many tears and the whole family will suffer.
I just really feel for the family as they try to raise two other children and have a 4th on the way. It must be SUCH a terrible situation.
On a more general note, I do think it's right that judges should be allowed to intervene. Not because the parents may be too stupid to understand, far from it. But because I feel they are too attached. From an objective point of view now, I can't honestly say that if I were Charlotte's mother I would want her to be allowed to die. However I would want the best for my child, ALWAYS. If that meant allowing her to die, I accept that I'd probably need someone else to make that decision for me. For that reason alone (however badly explained!), I agree with judicial intervention.
A horrendously difficult question Georgie. Doctors, of course, need to consider what is best for the patient. They are in a better position to make a rational decision on the babies welfare than the parents. However, you must also consider the baby's right to life and the rights of the parents. In "applied ethics" Peter Singer attempts to answer this question:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer
The main point is
"Consistent with his general ethical theory, Singer holds that the right to physical integrity is grounded in a being's ability to suffer, and the right to life is grounded in the ability to plan and anticipate one's future. Since the unborn, infants and severely disabled people lack the latter (but not the former) ability, he states that abortion, painless infanticide and euthanasia can be justified in certain special circumstances, for instance in the case of severely disabled infants whose life would cause suffering both to themselves and to their parents"
At the bottom of the article you will see that singer faced a similar dilemma himself.
Very sad whatever the outcome.
jim
It is hard to comment on something like this, because we are not the people (i.e. Parents / child) involved. It is very sad.
To be honest, my opinion is that when you have somebody who will have a terrible quality of life (i.e. extremly disabled, or can't breath for themselves) I think, we should be able to 'let them go' - but then I hope I am never in a position to make that decison (touch wood) because if it was my daughter or son I would probably think different.
my son was very premature and it was discovered when he was a 2 weeks old that he had had a severe bleed on his brain and that he would have no quality of life and that we should let him go.
I point blank refused and today he is a happy, smiley child, who contrary to what the doctors said has a personality, can hold his head up, can crawl, can walk in a frame and understands what we talk to him about, if only that doctor still worked at the hospital.