August 28, 2004
SAY A PRAYER FOR CHARLOTTE
Parents in fight to keep their baby alive (Stewart Payne, The Telegraph, August 28th, 2004)
The parents of a premature baby were yesterday preparing to challenge doctors who have said they will not resuscitate their child when it develops life-threatening breathing difficulties.The hospital trust has supported the stance taken by its medical experts and said it will seek a court ruling if the parents insist on 10-month-old Charlotte Wyatt being resuscitated in an intensive care unit. Darren and Debbie Wyatt said they would challenge the trust if the matter goes to court.
Charlotte was born three months premature at St Mary's Hospital, Portsmouth, weighing just one pound and measuring only five inches.
She has never left hospital, has stopped breathing three times due to serious heart and lung problems, and doctors say she would not survive in the long term because her lungs are so severely damaged.
When, as anticipated, she requires a ventilator again, the hospital has told the Wyatts it is prepared to keep her alive long enough for them to attend at her bedside, but insists it would be "against the child's interests" artificially to resuscitate her.
Her parents spoke of their dismay at the hospital's decision and described their daughter, who is now 18 inches long and weighs 10lbs, as a "fighter" who should be given every chance of life.[...]
Dr Joanna Walker, clinical director of paediatrics at St Mary's Hospital, said: "When a child has a life limiting condition we work cooperatively with the parents and family always to act in the child's best interests."
Doctors can decide to withhold treatment if they believe they are acting in the patient's best interests and have discussed the decision with the patient or relatives.
After all, everybody knows how frequently death is in a child's best interests.
These aren't doctors. They're hardly even human.
One question--the hospital in the story is "St Mary's". Anyone know how hospitals work in the UK, and whether this is actually affiliated with a religious institution or if it's a historical relic and is now run by the gov't?
Posted by: brian at August 28, 2004 5:25 PMThis is what happens when you let someone else pick up the tab for your medical expenses. Someone else gets to decide for you what treatments you (or your dependents) get, or don't get, and you have no say in the matter.
Raoul, I doubt anybody but Bill
Gates could pick up that tab out of his own income.
Orrin, I thought you were not allowed to pray for results?
Also, isn't a bit odd to pray to the agent who caused the problem in the first place?
Posted by: Harry Eagar at August 28, 2004 6:47 PMHarry:
That was me. Your point about costs is a good one. I would also allow that there is a respectable argument that the commitment of hospitals to keep every preemie born with heart-renderingly serious problems can not be absolute and open-ended. There is also an even more respectable argument that it can. But I am suprised a hard-nosed, experienced, no b-s journalist like you is not disgusted that a clear and cold institutional cost/benefit decision on a baby's life is being dressed up with blather about how death is in her best interests.
Posted by: Peter B at August 28, 2004 7:07 PMA personal viewpoint on 'death with dignity':
http://www.ecumenicalinsanity.net/archives/archive-07042004-07102004.html
Scroll down to "This is Why Euthenasia is Wrong", almost halfway down the page.
Posted by: Baillie at August 28, 2004 7:51 PMDid the author of this piece refer to the baby as "it" in the first paragraph?
Posted by: John W. at August 28, 2004 8:39 PMBarbarism. Nothing more, nothing less.
Posted by: Chris at August 28, 2004 9:01 PMPeter, I'm not taking a position either way.
If it happened to someone I was reponsible for, I have no idea what I'd do.
Well, I wouldn't pray, that's for sure.
We eliminate human beings every day based on cost-benefit, or allocation.
People without medical insurance die earlier than those with.
On average, productive members of No. American society generate perhaps $2M over a lifetime. (Say, $40K/yr over 50 years) Therefore, we cannot ALL enjoy $2M (or even $1M) worth of medical care.
Not every exhausted libertine in China will get his ounce of rhino horn.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at August 29, 2004 7:19 PMHarry:
You don't understand. It's as much about us as it is about her.
Posted by: Peter B at August 29, 2004 7:53 PMPeter:
I think Harry does understand.
It is also about others than her.
In cold cash terms, what is the opportunity cost of this intervention? How many other lives are not saved due to resources being expended upon this particulary touching case?
The other thing I would think religionists would note is modern science playing God. Absent advanced medical techniques, the product of secularism and rational inquiry, this baby would have long since died.
Posted by: Jeff Guinn at August 30, 2004 7:54 AM>These aren't doctors. They're hardly even human.
Oh yes they are. Remember something called the "Reich League of Doctors"? They pioneered the carbon-monoxide treatment for "useless eaters" that was improved upon by SS Hygiene and Sanitation with Zyklon B.
Posted by: Ken at August 30, 2004 12:51 PMI'd like to think I understand. I just don't have an answer for you.
For various reasons, not everybody who needs a liver transplant gets one.
Are the doctors who keep that gate "barely even human"?
Posted by: Harry Eagar at August 30, 2004 7:49 PMSuch a terrible decision that the parents of Charlotte now have to face. It is thought to be wrong. Miracles often happen.
With love & prayers to Charlotte & her parents.
Posted by: anon at October 7, 2004 12:54 PMJudge rules baby must die.
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/legal/story.jsp?story=569954