Zone1 Should Lives of Profoundly Disabled Children Be Sustained?

[SweetSue92]

I really struggle with this one.

Some profoundly disabled children can neither eat nor breathe on their own, but are on a trach (and sometimes a vent) and GI feeding tube. Many are also not mobile and have no means of communication. These are the children I'm talking about here, not those who, with supports, can lead meaningful lives (which includes most disabilities).

I struggle with how far we should take life-saving measures at a child's birth, and to what end. We have DNR for the end of life, because we recognize that many times, sustaining life artificially is cruel.

If a baby is born and it's clear this child will never breathe or eat on their own, will face multiple surgeries and a lifetime of treatment--for whose benefit are we prolonging life? I recognize parents' heartbreak, and the urge to cling to small hope of a miracle, no matter how small. But when I see these children, permanently attached to tubes and wheelchairs, I am morally conflicted.

What are your thoughts?

 

[SweetSue92]

I really struggle with this one.

Some profoundly disabled children can neither eat nor breathe on their own, but are on a trach (and sometimes a vent) and GI feeding tube. Many are also not mobile and have no means of communication. These are the children I'm talking about here, not those who, with supports, can lead meaningful lives (which includes most disabilities).

I struggle with how far we should take life-saving measures at a child's birth, and to what end. We have DNR for the end of life, because we recognize that many times, sustaining life artificially is cruel.

If a baby is born and it's clear this child will never breathe or eat on their own, will face multiple surgeries and a lifetime of treatment--for whose benefit are we prolonging life? I recognize parents' heartbreak, and the urge to cling to small hope of a miracle, no matter how small. But when I see these children, permanently attached to tubes and wheelchairs, I am morally conflicted.

What are your thoughts?

I did find this article from a Catholic perspective, which seems to endorse not offering extraordinary life support (I am not making a financial argument myself, fwiw):

A devout Roman Catholic, Camosy said that a case can be made for withholding treatment from profoundly ill newborns by using the church’s distinction between “ordinary” and “extraordinary” treatment. Church teachings require that all means of “ordinary,” or proportionate, treatment must be administered to the sick or dying. But omissions or curtailments of “extraordinary,” or disproportionate, treatments are considered morally and ethically acceptable.

Emotions can run high, he said, when talking about a tiny newborn that is often a “preemie.” What is considered “extraordinary” and what constitutes “disproportionate?” Who decides?

“Nobody wants to talk about this issue,” Camosy said. “Our society has a limited amount of money to spend on health care, and we need to allocate it in ways that will help more people, instead of blindly spending it.

Theology Professor Explores Hard Moral Choices in Neo-Natal Care

Charles Camosy, Ph.D., is not always politically correct. In fact, Camosy, assistant professor of theology, is outspoken about hot-button sociopolitical issues: Government embryonic stem cell funding? He is against it.

now.fordham.edu

 

[RetiredGySgt]

when you give Government the right to decide who lives and dies then it will be perverted, and many will die that didn't need too.

 

[Woodznutz]

when you give Government the right to decide who lives and dies then it will be perverted, and many will die that didn't need too.

Parents and doctors should make those decisions.

Most who die 'prematurely' now don't need to. People just seem to have a death wish, based on how they treat themselves.

We might want to keep these people alive as a witness and reminder of our utter failure to improve the health of mankind.

 

[OhPleaseJustQuit]

I really struggle with this one.

Some profoundly disabled children can neither eat nor breathe on their own, but are on a trach (and sometimes a vent) and GI feeding tube. Many are also not mobile and have no means of communication. These are the children I'm talking about here, not those who, with supports, can lead meaningful lives (which includes most disabilities).

I struggle with how far we should take life-saving measures at a child's birth, and to what end. We have DNR for the end of life, because we recognize that many times, sustaining life artificially is cruel.

If a baby is born and it's clear this child will never breathe or eat on their own, will face multiple surgeries and a lifetime of treatment--for whose benefit are we prolonging life? I recognize parents' heartbreak, and the urge to cling to small hope of a miracle, no matter how small. But when I see these children, permanently attached to tubes and wheelchairs, I am morally conflicted.

What are your thoughts?

.

It's heart breaking, and I also struggle with this, because I am Catholic, and we reverence ALL human life. It's easy enough for me to holler about abortion, and not so easy to feel the same way about severely disabled children and people on death row.

It's a tough one.

.

 

[1srelluc]

This AIN'T Sparta!

 

[Woodznutz]

.

It's heart breaking, and I also struggle with this, because I am Catholic, and we reverence ALL human life. It's easy enough for me to holler about abortion, and not so easy to feel the same way about severely disabled children and people on death row.

It's a tough one.

.

Easy for me. In the hereafter all will be healed and given the opportunity for eternal life. Why condemn the badly disabled to a 'non-life' just so we can feel righteous. Gently place them in God's loving hands.

 

[MarathonMike]

This AIN'T Sparta!

So I take that to mean you are an advocate for sustaining life at any cost even for children who have zero ability to breathe or eat on their own?

 

[sealybobo]

I really struggle with this one.

Some profoundly disabled children can neither eat nor breathe on their own, but are on a trach (and sometimes a vent) and GI feeding tube. Many are also not mobile and have no means of communication. These are the children I'm talking about here, not those who, with supports, can lead meaningful lives (which includes most disabilities).

I struggle with how far we should take life-saving measures at a child's birth, and to what end. We have DNR for the end of life, because we recognize that many times, sustaining life artificially is cruel.

If a baby is born and it's clear this child will never breathe or eat on their own, will face multiple surgeries and a lifetime of treatment--for whose benefit are we prolonging life? I recognize parents' heartbreak, and the urge to cling to small hope of a miracle, no matter how small. But when I see these children, permanently attached to tubes and wheelchairs, I am morally conflicted.

What are your thoughts?

This is what late term abortions are for.

 

[SweetSue92]

when you give Government the right to decide who lives and dies then it will be perverted, and many will die that didn't need too.

I do not think the govt should have any part in the decision. I'm talking about parents and medical professionals, and only when the means to sustain life are extraordinary

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I do not think the govt should have any part in the decision. I'm talking about parents and medical professionals, and only when the means to sustain life are extraordinary

that already happens.

 

[SweetSue92]

.

It's heart breaking, and I also struggle with this, because I am Catholic, and we reverence ALL human life. It's easy enough for me to holler about abortion, and not so easy to feel the same way about severely disabled children and people on death row.

It's a tough one.

.

Yes. For me, abortion is a willful taking of life. IOW that baby is alive, sustained in the mother, and you are prematurely ending the life.

Which to me is different than letting the profoundly disabled child go naturally.

I have read stories before where Catholic parents are having a baby who won't survive, but they carry the pg to term and let nature take its course. The question I'm asking is: what if life can only be sustained by extreme medical measures.

There's a prominent profoundly disabled child on social media that has all the tubing, is 2 yrs old and has had 20 surgeries already, with more to come. That's the situation I have in mind.

 

[SweetSue92]

This is what late term abortions are for.

The baby is alive in the womb. An abortion is purposefully ending that life.

Which is different than a baby who is born, and dies naturally without extreme measures.

 

[MarathonMike]

I do not think the govt should have any part in the decision. I'm talking about parents and medical professionals, and only when the means to sustain life are extraordinary

Yes, the decisions about end of life should always be by the parents only with guidance from medical experts.

 

[SweetSue92]

This AIN'T Sparta!

Right, they would have left a child out to die for a missing forearm, or six fingers.

I'm not talking about that, nor anything close. Read the OP please.

 

[1srelluc]

Right, they would have left a child out to die for a missing forearm, or six fingers.

I'm not talking about that, nor anything close. Read the OP please.

I read it and I find it crass, bordering on disturbing, that you would even bring it up. Got any opinions on drowning kittens or puppies?

 

[SweetSue92]

I read it and I find it crass, bordering on disturbing, that you would even bring it up. Got any opinions on drowning kittens or puppies?

You mean you don't want to think about it, right? Or are you making the case that babies should be kept alive no matter their quality of life, no matter the surgeries, medical interventions and etc they will need to stay alive?

 

[1srelluc]

You mean you don't want to think about it, right? Or are you making the case that babies should be kept alive no matter their quality of life, no matter the surgeries, medical interventions and etc they will need to stay alive?

You should get a job, you seem to have way too much time on your hands in retirement.

 

[SweetSue92]

You should get a job, you seem to have way too much time on your hands in retirement.

Dude I'm here a fraction of the time you are, first.

Secondly: what is your position? Bringing this up is crass bc you don't want to think about it? Or it's crass to refrain from using any life-preserving methods, despite the child having a terrible quality of life?

 

[1srelluc]

Dude I'm here a fraction of the time you are, first.

Secondly: what is your position? Bringing this up is crass bc you don't want to think about it? Or it's crass to refrain from using any life-preserving methods, despite the child having a terrible quality of life?

Not my monkey, not my circus.