Fight over baby's life support divides ethicists - CNN.com
Update: More at the Washington PostEmilio is 17 months old and has a rare genetic disorder that's ravaging his central nervous system. He cannot see, speak, or eat. A ventilator breathes for him in the Pediatric Intensive Care Unit at Austin Children's Hospital, where he's been since December. Without the ventilator, Emilio would die within hours.
The hospital contends that keeping Emilio alive on a ventilator is painful for the toddler and useless against his illness -- Leigh's disease, a rare degenerative disorder that has no cure.
Emilio's mother, Catarina Gonzales, on the other hand, is fighting to keep her son on the ventilator, allowing him to die "naturally, the way God intended."
I'm going to have to think about this one some more, and maybe read some more, from both sides.
The medical decision lies with the boys parents....
But the doctors and hospitals have the right to refuse to follow the parents (or anyone's) wishes if they think it harms the child and/or is futile.
Then there's the cost issue. Doctors and hospital have gone to heroic and expensive efforts to save people even when there is only a slim chance of it working, and even when no one can pay for it. But in this case it sounds like they are not doing any actual "TREATMENT" for this child, they are just keeping him alive.
In my opinion, the purpose of artificial life support is to keep a patient alive long enough to repair, or cure them or for them to heal after a treatment. If there is no chance for cure or healing, and the person is in pain (or unable to communicate), then the question of how long to keep them on life support becomes very important.
0 comments:
Post a Comment