Couples distress at baby ruling

Discussion in 'The Intelligence Cell' started by spike7451, Mar 21, 2009.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. spike7451

    spike7451 RIP

    Not having children myself I cannot imagine what the parents are going thru but I'm angry that a compromise could'nt be reached between all parties over this.

  2. It is an incredibley hard choice to make....

    And to be honest, I wouldn't want to touch it with a 12ft pole!!!!

    I just prey that I will never have to find out what it is like for the parents of the poor little mite.
  3. Agreed. Not sure what I would do in their shoes and I hope to Jeebus I never have to find out.
  4. spike7451

    spike7451 RIP

    A seriously ill baby whose parents lost a court battle with doctors to keep him alive on a ventilator has died.

    The nine-month-old, known as "Baby OT", had a rare metabolic disorder and had brain damage and respiratory failure.

    His parents had appealed against a ruling at London's High Court that it was in the boy's best interests to withdraw "life-sustaining treatment".

    Baby OT was unable to breathe by himself and died at 1008 GMT after doctors withdrew his treatment.

    'He died peacefully'

    His parents said they were "deeply distressed" by the decision of the High Court in London and said the life of their "beautiful boy" was worth preserving.

    The couple said through their solicitor after the death was announced: "During his short time with us, OT became the focus of our lives. We were present during his last moments, together with [his] extended family.

    "He died peacefully. We will miss him greatly and wish to say that we are proud to have known our beautiful son for his brief life."
  5. I don't have any kids either,so maybe my view is less relevant,but I think the judges made the correct decision.If they had kept the baby alive,what sort of life would that be for any of them?
    IIRC there was a time when babies that were not going to have a "normal life",were quietly put to sleep with a pillow over their faces.
  6. And we used to set dogs on tethered bears for fun. Thank feck we have moved on in both respects.
  7. Not every life conceived is a life to be lived. Science has moved very quickly in some aspects and 'we' seem to think that 'we' can and should save every life. I don't hold that view and as terrible as it is for some families (my family has experienced the 'to live or not to live' question with one of my grandparents) I think that 'we' need to accept that as precious as life is, it is life not existence that makes us what we are. Humanity is as much about ending a life as saving a life.
  8. I DO have kids (not that that fact makes me more or less qualified to comment) and I also think the judges made the right decision. He was a cabbage breathing and eating through a tube. How is that living? I think the parents in this case were trying to keep him alive purely for their own sake, not his.

    I do think it's a bit hypocritical of the courts of our land to make this decision when there are people fighting for the right to voluntary euthanasia and being denied. Not that these cases are the same, but they do both try to put different values on the human life.
  9. Biped

    Biped LE Book Reviewer

    I can't even begin to imagine what pain they must be going through, and I wouldn't presume to try and make a judgement on their decision to go to court either.
  10. It's easier for us to make a judgement based on cold facts and common sense, as it wasn't our child. I hope that if I'm ever faced with a moral decision like that, I'll accept facts and reason and let the child die in peace.
  11. This is not a direct comparison as life-prolonging treatment is withdrawn from adults too - what is being denied to the applicants for voluntary euthanasia is the right for other people to assist them with suicide when they feel the time is right.
  12. BiscuitsAB

    BiscuitsAB LE Moderator

    just a thought when they talk about withdrawing feeding do they mean in plain english "starving him to death " and does it include withdrawl of fluids? Only its my understanding that its a rather unpleasant way to die.
  14. A very distressing story, but I support the decision to turn off the machines keeping this poor mite alive. I was listening to the news this morning and there was a lady being interviewed - I didn't catch whether she was an NHS Adminsitrator ( :evil: ) or a Politician ( :evil: :evil: ), but she was making a very valid point. Every day across Britain decisions similar to this have to be taken, as the quality of life of the baby is so negligible. Babies such as this are generally in constant pain and therefore normally heavily sedated. Eventually, a stark choice has to be made, because the poor child is effectively using up valuable hospital intensive care resources, which could be used more effectively elsewhere.

    Normally I would be tearing my hair out at the penny-pinching attitude of the NHS administrators, but in this case I have to agree. This is not about keeping a child alive long enough so that their quality of life eventually improves - that is never going to happen.
    So, if you keep them alive indefinitely, the truly horrifying scenario is that you will have hospital wards across the country choc a bloc with cots full of tiny scraps of humanity wired up to machines. Not quite as bad as the scene in Aliens 3, when Ripley throws a track, but not far way.
    My sympathies to the poor parents.
  15. BiscuitsAB

    BiscuitsAB LE Moderator

    Ah so "he died peacefully" is now a euphemism for dying choking struggling to draw breath.