Fight Over Baby's Life Support Divides Ethicists

Originally posted by Robtard
If that was the issue, then why isn't assisted suicided legal for people who have painful and fatal illnesses?

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
It is in Belgium, Switzerland and the Netherlands. And Oregon apparently, which surprised me.

Considering it's an American [Texas] story/situation, other nation's laws are irrelevant here.

It is in Oregon, have a link? I believe you, just extremely surprised. Didn't know states had the authority to decide individually on this issue.

Originally posted by Robtard
Considering it's an American [Texas] story/situation, other nation's laws are irrelevant here.

It is in Oregon, have a link? I believe you, just extremely surprised. Didn't know states had the authority to decide individually on this issue.

States have always had that authority. At least untili the national Supreme Cort over rules them.

Originally posted by Devil King
States have always had that authority. At least untili the national Supreme Cort over rules them.

I was under the [wrong apparently] impression that "assisted suicide" was one of those cases.

Originally posted by Robtard
Lets see, one can't say "do it" or "don't so it" for themselves, while the other is actively wanting to die and end his/her "severe pain". Hmm.

Originally posted by FeceMan
That's part of it, yes.

So logically the hospital should have say over the parents or family for those who can't speak for themselves?

Originally posted by Robtard
So logically the hospital should have say over the parents or family for those who can't speak for themselves?

Originally posted by FeceMan
When did I say that?

When did I say you did? It was a question.

Originally posted by Robtard
Considering it's an American [Texas] story/situation, other nation's laws are irrelevant here.

It is in Oregon, have a link? I believe you, just extremely surprised. Didn't know states had the authority to decide individually on this issue.

I should clarify actually, on closer inspection the Oregon statute is assisted suicide in a strict literal sense and not euthanasia, in that the lethal dose is self-administered upon prescription by a physician.
http://egov.oregon.gov/DHS/ph/pas/

Originally posted by FeceMan
Because there's a difference between withdrawing life support and actively killing the person.

Yeah, withdrawing life-support seems more inhumane.

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

Because it might be obstructing the potentially life saving treatment of other babies with a shot at life.

You can overstate a Dcotor's responsibility to treat a patient. There is a point- and we have reached that point- at where such treatment performs no practical use other than to make the Mother feel better. That is not the job of a Doctor.

It's a waste of resources, it's not helping the patient and wasting time on it could be harming others.

Doctors should absolutely have the right to decide when treatment is futile or not.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yeah, withdrawing life-support seems more inhumane.

Actually very true in that it likely causes more suffering.

But still very different from actively making an effort to kill, and that is an important distinction.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Actually very true in that it likely causes more suffering.

But still very different from actively making an effort to kill, and that is an important distinction.

Not to me. Not in my moral view. Well, I guess it is different. But as I said I would in this case prefer if they were actively killed in a humane way...

What would you say is the "moral" thing to do?

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Because it might be obstructing the potentially life saving treatment of other babies with a shot at life.

You can overstate a Dcotor's responsibility to treat a patient. There is a point- and we have reached that point- at where such treatment performs no practical use other than to make the Mother feel better. That is not the job of a Doctor.

It's a waste of resources, it's not helping the patient and wasting time on it could be harming others.

Doctors should absolutely have the right to decide when treatment is futile or not.

That's a very fine line then, which can easily be abused. As noted in the story, if the family had money and they could personally pay for it, this wouldn't be an issue. Unfortunately for her , her insurance or the state is paying for it so therefore the pressure on the hospital to "save" is there.

If the resources being utilized to keep this moribund baby alive, while he suffers the fatal, incurable, progressive disease, could be "saved" and therefore better used to help other families that need it, what then?

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
If the resources being utilized to keep this moribund baby alive, while he suffers the fatal, incurable, progressive disease, could be "saved" and therefore better used to help other families that need it, what then?

If It came down to another person's life being threatened due to lack of resources, then sure, saving the one you can is the logical choice. This isn't the case though, it's "the baby is suffering, so just end it" as far as the hospital is concerned.

Originally posted by Robtard
I was under the [wrong apparently] impression that "assisted suicide" was one of those cases.

I'm not sure about that. I wasn't addressing assisted sucide. I was talking about states rights alone.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
And Oregon apparently, which surprised me.

It shouldn't be surprising that its legal in Oregon.

Originally posted by Robtard
When did I say you did? It was a question.