Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: Medical ethics debate anyone? It's been a couple years since Terri Schiavo.

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1

    Default Medical ethics debate anyone? It's been a couple years since Terri Schiavo.

    Quote Originally Posted by CNN
    AUSTIN, Texas (CNN) -- 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. (Watch more on the battle over Emilio. Video )

    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."
    Seriously, this is ludicruous. Your 17 month old baby is blind, deaf, and dumb, needs a ventilator to stay alive -- and oh, by the way has an incurable genetic disease. Let the little ****er die already! Keeping him on a ventilator is only prolonging his pain.

    But this paragraph made me laugh my ****ing ass off:

    Catarina Gonzales is fighting to keep her son on the ventilator, allowing him to die "naturally, the way God intended.
    Lady, "God" gave your son an incurable genetic ailment that -- if not for the ventilator -- would have killed him 12 months ago, probably less. I'm fairly certain 'he' wants your kid dead.

    I hate it when people say "I want to do this so God wants it too".

    Medical ethics debate anyone? It's been a couple years since Terri Schiavo.

  2. #2

    Default Re: Medical ethics debate anyone? It's been a couple years since Terri Schiavo.

    The poor woman is obviously deranged with grief. It is sick to allow her to go on like this. A caring state would force the matter. She even says that her child opens his eyes and looks at her, though she's been told he's blind. And she thinks that being on constant heavy doses of morphine to block the pain is somehow 'natural'. Some people are just weaker than others, and something happening to your child is the thing most calculated to disturb your mental command anyway.

    If someone has a duty of care imposed by their medical responsibility for a patient, and the injury that is to be done to them is less than the injury that would happen otherwise, they should act irrespective of family wishes. At present that only permits them to withdraw artificial support to let suffering and irretrievable patients die in the normal way - that isn't good enough. They should be empowered to euthanise also. That isn't necessary in this case, but it is in others.

    The root of the problem on a socio-political level is this perverted fetish that has been cultivated by certain weak-minded and inferior types, who believe in life existing for the sake of life itself - they call themselves 'pro-life', though in truth they are best described as 'pro-degradation'. This deeply warped belief attacks the essence of humanity itself, treating people as though they were units, amoebas in a petri-dish to be counted with a microscope. Only when this false belief has been destroyed will people be treated with dignity.
    Last edited by Cluny the Scourge; May 20, 2007 at 06:08 PM.
    Cluny the Scourge's online Rome: Total War voice-commentated battle videos can be found here: http://uk.youtube.com/profile?user=C...e1&view=videos - View on High Quality only.



    Cluny will roast you on a spit in your own juice...

  3. #3

    Default Re: Medical ethics debate anyone? It's been a couple years since Terri Schiavo.

    Tough situation
    Sponsored by the Last Roman

  4. #4
    Indefinitely Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    lala
    Posts
    4,273

    Default Re: Medical ethics debate anyone? It's been a couple years since Terri Schiavo.

    this is something I don't have a real opinion on, if her insurance is still paying then who cares, if it isn't then the plug never should have been plugged to begin with -

    terri, however, was not an ethics debate -
    it was a political one - cases like Terri's happen everyday still and happened before and they all end in the wishes of the spouse or the pre defined wishes of the braindead being honored

    as they should be
    Last edited by enoch; May 20, 2007 at 06:29 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •