Fight Over Baby's Life Support Divides Ethicists

Started by Adam_PoE3 pages

Fight Over Baby's Life Support Divides Ethicists

"Fight Over Baby's Life Support Divides Ethicists" by Elizabeth Cohen

AUSTIN, Texas–When Emilio Gonzales lies in his mother's arms, sometimes he'll make a facial expression that his mother says is a smile.

But the nurse who's standing right next to her thinks he's grimacing in pain.

Which one it is–an expression of happiness or of suffering–is a crucial point in an ethical debate that has pitted the mother of a dying child against a children's hospital, and medical ethicists against each other.

Emilio 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.

Under Texas law, Children's has the right to withdraw life support if medical experts deem it medically inappropriate.

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."

The two sides have been in and out of courts, with the next hearing scheduled for May 8.

The case, and the Texas law, have divided medical ethicists. Art Caplan, an ethicist at the University of Pennsylvania, supports the Texas law giving the hospital the right to make life or death decisions even if the family disagrees. "There are occasions when family members just don't get it right," he said. "No parent should have the right to cause suffering to a kid in a futile situation."

But Dr. Lainie Ross, a pediatrician and medical ethicist at the University of Chicago, says she thinks Emilio's mother, not the doctors, should be able to decide whether Emilio's life is worth living. "Who am I to judge what's a good quality of life?" she said. "If this were my kid, I'd have pulled the ventilator months ago, but this isn't my kid."

The law, signed in 1999 by then-Gov. George W. Bush, gives Texas hospitals the authority to stop treatment if doctors say the treatment is "inappropriate"–even if the family wants the medical care to continue. The statute was inspired by a growing debate in medical and legal communities over when to declare medical treatment futile.

Dr. Ross says that under the law, some dozen times hospitals have pulled the plug against the family's wishes. She says more often than not, the law is used against poor families. "The law is going to be used more commonly against poor, vulnerable populations. If this family could pay for a nurse to take care of the boy at home, we wouldn't be having this conversation," she said.

Emilio is on Medicaid, which usually doesn't pay for all hospital charges. The hospital's spokesman said that he doesn't know how much it's costing the hospital to keep Emilio alive, but that cost was not a consideration in the hospital's decision.

"[Our medical treatments] are inflicting suffering," said Michael Regier, senior vice president for legal affairs and general counsel for the Seton Family of Hospitals, of which Austin Children's is a member. "We are inflicting harm on this child. And it's harm that is without a corresponding medical benefit."

"It's one thing to harm a child and know this is something I can cure," he added. "But that's not the case here." Regier says Emilio is unaware of his surroundings, and grimaces in pain. He said the ventilator tube down his throat is painful, as is a therapy in which hospital staff beat on his chest to loosen thick secretions.

But Gonzales says her son is on heavy doses of morphine and not in pain. She said her son does react to her. "I put my finger in his hand, and I'm talking to him, and he'll squeeze it," she says. "Then he'll open his eyes and look at me."

Gonzales said she'll continue to fight for treatment for her son. "I love my kid so much, I have to fight for him," she said. "That's your job–you fight for your son or your daughter. You don't let nobody push you around or make decisions for you."

He cant see, speak or eat? If thats the case and he's doomed to be like that for the rest of his life, then do the poor kid a favor and pull the plug.

"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." "

Are people just saying the most ridiculous things to piss me off nowadays?

Originally posted by Bardock42
"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." "

Are, people just saying the most ridiculous things to piss me off nowadays?

yeah, its simply astonishing how dumb as shit these people are

genetic screening anyone?

Originally posted by Bardock42
"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." "

Are people just saying the most ridiculous things to piss me off nowadays?

Granted, but don't be so quick to judge her. Anyone can be obtuse and say "let him die, he has no chance of surviving" and it certainly is logical; I am one of those people. But I do think it's complete bullshit that the hospital has say over the parents of when the child dies.

Originally posted by Robtard
Granted, but don't be so quick to judge her. Anyone can be obtuse and say "let him die, he has no chance of surviving" and it certainly is logical; I am one of those people. But I do think it's complete bullshit that the hospital has say over the parents of when the child dies.

No, yes, no.....

The point is her argument is stupid. She talks about natural death with her son having a wacky waving inflatable arm man tube in his throat...

Originally posted by Bardock42
No, yes, no.....

The point is her argument is stupid. She talks about natural death with her son having a wacky waving inflatable arm man tube in his throat...

I agreed that her "natural death... as God intended..." reasoning is stupid, considering the situation. But the parents shouldn't have the say, why?

of course the parents should have a say. however if god really had the final word that baby would be dead.

Originally posted by Schecter
of course the parents should have a say. however if god really had the final word that baby would be dead.

That's my point.

I agree that her "reasoning" is illogical when taking into account the situation, but that doesn't counter her having the final say.

Originally posted by Robtard
That's my point.

I agree that her "reasoning" is illogical when taking into account the situation, but that doesn't counter her having the final say.

Then we all agree.

yes, we all agree that that lady is dumb as shit...good...moving along

Dr. Ross says that under the law, some dozen times hospitals have pulled the plug against the family's wishes. She says more often than not, the law is used against poor families. "The law is going to be used more commonly against poor, vulnerable populations.

Hmm....

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Hmm....

Hehe, poor and vulnerable....like that little kid that is constantly in pain.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Hmm....

Wonder why that law was passed? 🙄 Do you think it's of any possible chance the multibillion dollar insurance companies had a hand in it...

"The law, signed in 1999 by then-Gov. George W. Bush, gives Texas hospitals the authority to stop treatment if doctors say the treatment is "inappropriate"–even if the family wants the medical care to continue. The statute was inspired by a growing debate in medical and legal communities over when to declare medical treatment futile."

Originally posted by Robtard
Wonder why that law was passed? 🙄 Do you think it's of any possible chance the multibillion dollar insurance companies had a hand in it...

Some thieves will rob you with weapon....other thieves will rob you with a fountain pen.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Some thieves will rob you with weapon....other thieves will rob you with a fountain pen.

Quote of Dwarf?

Originally posted by Robtard
Wonder why that law was passed? 🙄 Do you think it's of any possible chance the multibillion dollar insurance companies had a hand in it...

"The law, signed in 1999 by then-Gov. George W. Bush, gives Texas hospitals the authority to stop treatment if doctors say the treatment is "inappropriate"–even if the family wants the medical care to continue. The statute was inspired by a growing debate in medical and legal communities over when to declare medical treatment futile."

That was nearly 8 years ago. He supports the "culture of life" now. 🙄

culture of destroying lives

"Children's has the right to withdraw life support if medical experts deem it medically inappropriate."

Is that really how it's framed under Texas law or is that some sort of editorial slip up?

Anyway. Obviously it's better to keep the kid doped up and on a ventilator while he slowly suffers from a disease that's incurable, progressive and ultimately fatal, just so the mother can watch him probably smile.