Victory for women's rights: Mother wins right to end disabled child's life

[awesome31312]

however, the attitude of a mother ending the life of her child by abortion, is a mistake that must be corrected, ending the life of someone else in the religious law and state law are not allowed, there are conditions where it is allowed, if the child is a life-threatening mother conceived him, hopefully can be given the best ...

Don't make me abort you

[ARadzi]

May the child's soul rest in peace.
It just makes me sad that she havent even enjoyed what life has to offer, but Im glad that her and her mom's suffering already came to an end. Will pray for them both.

[wunkbone]

VERY progressive!
I can't believe we have come so far! America, the land of the free!

Come on guys, don't like abortions? Don't get aborted. Don't like slavery? Don't buy a slave.

As a physician who has spent a fair amount of time treating patients in an ICU I have no problem with this one.

Very few people who are not in the medical field realize just how long we can sustain life unnaturally. Cant eat anymore we feed you through a tube. Sick to the point where you intestines cant absorb nutrients no problem we can feed you directly into you veins with TPN (liquid nutrients). Can't breath anymore no problem we will put you on a ventilator. Heart is shot we can put a mechanical LVAD (heart assist device in).

We can and will keep you going on and on while you family watches you gradually and progressively deteriorate. Eventually something will fail that we can't stop. We can not replace liver function yet. Also chronic infection may set in something that wont respond to antibiotics.

This poor mom has taken care of an extremely sick child for 12 years. A child that had no hope of ever growing into an healthy adult. A child that in any other time would have died naturally as an infant. Don't judge her unless you truly understand what she has been through.

The mother is not forced to take care of the child. She could easily give up her child to a foster family or put her up for adoption. While I do think that a person should have the right to be able to die with dignity, I don't think this is a decision that a parent should make for a child if the child has not given consent for the parent to make such a decision

[CoinCube]

The mother is not forced to take care of the child. She could easily give up her child to a foster family or put her up for adoption. While I do think that a person should have the right to be able to die with dignity, I don't think this is a decision that a parent should make for a child if the child has not given consent for the parent to make such a decision

The mother is the child's legal guardian. She is the one entrusted to make decision for the child.

Did you read the article? The child is blind, cannot speak or communicate, and in constant agony. No family is going to adopt this child. No way foster care is an option. A child like this needs round the clock 24 hour care. Essentially the choice is have a full time 24 hour caregiver ie mom stay home and dedicate the rest of her life to watching the child or put the child in a nursing home funded by the taxpayers and have nurses watch her in shifts until the child dies. It is disingenuous to pretend such a child could ever be adopted.

Note this is not a decision about letting a child die. This is a decision about stopping aggressive unnatural medical interventions (in this case forcing food down a tube into the stomach of a child who was and never will be capable of eating) and letting nature take its course.

[wunkbone]

The mother is not forced to take care of the child. She could easily give up her child to a foster family or put her up for adoption. While I do think that a person should have the right to be able to die with dignity, I don't think this is a decision that a parent should make for a child if the child has not given consent for the parent to make such a decision

The mother is the child's legal guardian. She is the one entrusted to make decision for the child.

Did you read the article? The child is blind, cannot speak or communicate, and in constant agony. No family is going to adopt this child. No way foster care is an option. A child like this needs round the clock 24 hour care. Essentially the choice is have a full time 24 hour caregiver ie mom stay home and dedicate the rest of her life to watching the child or put the child in a nursing home funded by the taxpayers and have nurses watch her in shifts until the child dies. It is disingenuous to pretend such a child could ever be adopted.

Note this is not a decision about letting a child die. This is a decision about stopping aggressive unnatural medical interventions (in this case forcing food down a tube into the stomach of a child who was and never will be capable of eating) and letting nature take its course.

The child did not choose her mother to be her "guardian" but this is something that was done via law. I would agree that adoption is very unlikely but is still something the mother can try if she does not wish to continue to case for her child. I do not see why you say that putting the child in foster care would not be an option. Foster care is always an option if the child does not have any family to care for them.

[CoinCube]

The child did not choose her mother to be her "guardian" but this is something that was done via law. I would agree that adoption is very unlikely but is still something the mother can try if she does not wish to continue to case for her child. I do not see why you say that putting the child in foster care would not be an option. Foster care is always an option if the child does not have any family to care for them.

Agreed the child cannot choose anything and in this case will never be able to choose anything.
Foster parents make an average of $800-1000 dollars a month per child they watch. They often try to watch more then one so they can make more.

This child would require someone who has undergone extensive training on how to take care of her. Care of this child requires multiple and regular administration of tube feedings, care of the feeding tube, multiple daily diaper changes, daily showers and transfers form her bed to a wheelchair. Daily checks for skin breakdown on the buttocks and other pressure areas looking for pressure wounds.

She needs someone who will watch her and be there for her 24 hours a day. No foster parent is going to accept that for $800 a month. No responsible child protective service would put a child with this level of special needs into the foster care system where it is a guarantee she would not get properly cared for. She would need to be placed in a nursing home.

[wunkbone]

The child did not choose her mother to be her "guardian" but this is something that was done via law. I would agree that adoption is very unlikely but is still something the mother can try if she does not wish to continue to case for her child. I do not see why you say that putting the child in foster care would not be an option. Foster care is always an option if the child does not have any family to care for them.

Agreed the child cannot choose anything and in this case will never be able to choose anything.
Foster parents make an average of $800-1000 dollars a month per child they watch. They often try to watch more then one so they can make more.

This child would require someone who has undergone extensive training on how to take care of her. Care of this child requires multiple and regular administration of tube feedings, care of the feeding tube, multiple daily diaper changes, daily showers and transfers form her bed to a wheelchair. Daily checks for skin breakdown on the buttocks and other pressure areas looking for pressure wounds.

She needs someone who will watch her and be there for her 24 hours a day. No foster parent is going to accept that for $800 a month. No responsible child protective service would put a child with this level of special needs into the foster care system where it is a guarantee she would not get properly cared for. She would need to be placed in a nursing home.

Then the child can be placed in a nursing home (if foster care is not something you would accept). The point is that the mother is not being forced to care for her daughter.

If the child is not able to make an informed decision to have her life ended then there is no reason why it should be, as long as she has not done anything wrong

EDIT: by 'anything wrong' I am anything that would be accepted by society as being deserving of the death penalty

[CoinCube]

If I was a child in this situation I would want my parents to let me die quickly and as painlessly as possible as an infant.

You seem to to be confusing withdrawing of unnatural and invasive medical therapies with execution.  This child is not having her life ended. The mother is refusing further invasive and unnatural medical care.

If the child is not able to make an informed decision to have her life ended then there is no reason why it should be, as long as she has not done anything wrong

If the child is unable to say
"I am in pain please stop torturing me and let me die"
We should just keep the torture going forever huh?
Seems a bit harsh to me.

Personally I would rather rely on the parents who are the ones most likely to love and care for the child and choose what is in the best interest of the child.

[awesome31312]

What most of us here are implying is that if one cannot speak up for their rights, they must be terminated

Think of how proud the Fuhrer would be!

[Lethn]

If I was a child in this situation I would want my parents to let me die quickly and as painlessly as possible as an infant.

You seem to to be confusing withdrawing of unnatural and invasive medical therapies with execution.  This child is not having her life ended. The mother is refusing further invasive and unnatural medical care.

If the child is not able to make an informed decision to have her life ended then there is no reason why it should be, as long as she has not done anything wrong

If the child is unable to say
"I am in pain please stop torturing me and let me die"
We should just keep the torture going forever huh?
Seems a bit harsh to me.

Personally I would rather rely on the parents who are the ones most likely to love and care for the child and choose what is in the best interest of the child.

Glad I'm not the only one who thinks like this, religious people like to act as if people who are pro-choice are all heartless child killers but lets think about it for a second because if I were a child and had cognitive brain function and could see what was going on out in the real world I'd probably strangle myself to death with my own umbilical cord and yeah, it's hard not to see the religious pro-life lot as heartless when they think a terminally ill person who wants to die should be kept alive despite having no cure for them and then there's rape because of course it's all the woman's fault for getting raped in the first place right?

We had this recent thing in the UK where a terminally ill guy was trying to get it to be legal for him to die on his own and he was crying when the government said no. It amazes me how arrogant religious people can be when dictating how other people should live, I also consider it a form of torture to keep someone who's in a lot of pain artificially alive through medicine because that's exactly what's happening, it's all artificial, they aren't living on their own.

Oh and don't fucking pretend it isn't you guys subverting the law that's doing this, we all know exactly what you're up to.

[TECSHARE]

The child did not choose her mother to be her "guardian" but this is something that was done via law. I would agree that adoption is very unlikely but is still something the mother can try if she does not wish to continue to case for her child. I do not see why you say that putting the child in foster care would not be an option. Foster care is always an option if the child does not have any family to care for them.

Agreed the child cannot choose anything and in this case will never be able to choose anything.
Foster parents make an average of $800-1000 dollars a month per child they watch. They often try to watch more then one so they can make more.

This child would require someone who has undergone extensive training on how to take care of her. Care of this child requires multiple and regular administration of tube feedings, care of the feeding tube, multiple daily diaper changes, daily showers and transfers form her bed to a wheelchair. Daily checks for skin breakdown on the buttocks and other pressure areas looking for pressure wounds.

She needs someone who will watch her and be there for her 24 hours a day. No foster parent is going to accept that for $800 a month. No responsible child protective service would put a child with this level of special needs into the foster care system where it is a guarantee she would not get properly cared for. She would need to be placed in a nursing home.

I agree with Cube here. I am anti-death penalty, pro-lethal force in self defense, and have mixed feelings on abortion for various reasons beyond the child or the mothers rights, and under certain circumstances, like this one, I would have to say I am pro-euthanasia. Life should be protected, but its easy to fight for the right to life when someone else has to suffer for that to happen. I find this is a common theme with lots of so called progressive moments. They will fight tooth and nail to make sure SOMEONE ELSE "does the right thing" at no expense to themselves personally other than the effort of the condemnations hurled from the supposed moral high ground.

[awesome31312]

I agree with Cube here. I am anti-death penalty,

Do you believe pedophiles can be reformed?

[Lethn]

I agree with Cube here. I am anti-death penalty,

Do you believe pedophiles can be reformed?

Do you believe in the absolute accuracy of the justice system? Because I sure fucking don't.

[awesome31312]

I agree with Cube here. I am anti-death penalty,

Do you believe pedophiles can be reformed?

Do you believe in the absolute accuracy of the justice system? Because I sure fucking don't.

No one does, but please answer my question

[Lethn]

I agree with Cube here. I am anti-death penalty,

Do you believe pedophiles can be reformed?

Do you believe in the absolute accuracy of the justice system? Because I sure fucking don't.

No one does, but please answer my question

What kind of a question is that in the first place? Any criminal can be reformed, it's just a question of how much effort people are willing to put in, but frankly if religious people have their way executing for people for their sexual preferences to me is one step closer to executing people for homosexuality and then any other fetish people have a problem with will be next.

[awesome31312]

I agree with Cube here. I am anti-death penalty,

Do you believe pedophiles can be reformed?

Do you believe in the absolute accuracy of the justice system? Because I sure fucking don't.

No one does, but please answer my question

What kind of a question is that in the first place? Any criminal can be reformed, it's just a question of how much effort people are willing to put in, but frankly if religious people have their way executing for people for their sexual preferences to me is one step closer to executing people for homosexuality and then any other fetish people have a problem with will be next.

Are you comparing homosexuality to pedophilia?

[Lethn]

I agree with Cube here. I am anti-death penalty,

Do you believe pedophiles can be reformed?

Do you believe in the absolute accuracy of the justice system? Because I sure fucking don't.

No one does, but please answer my question

What kind of a question is that in the first place? Any criminal can be reformed, it's just a question of how much effort people are willing to put in, but frankly if religious people have their way executing for people for their sexual preferences to me is one step closer to executing people for homosexuality and then any other fetish people have a problem with will be next.

Are you comparing homosexuality to pedophilia?

I'm comparing the mentality people have towards both, they consider it 'abnormal' therefore the people exhibiting these 'symptoms' have to be exterminated which is basically what you're advocating. Nevermind the fact there have been cases and I can go find news articles for you on this where people have been charged for paedophilia for having sex with 17 year olds and there are even cases where you have two 15 year olds or so having sex at the same age.

So yeah, I have a fucking problem with anyone who thinks killing criminals who have given themselves up or captured is a good idea.

http://www.gpb.org/news/2010/09/20/woman-no-longer-a-sex-offender#

^ Yeah, executing these 'paedophiles' will be a really great idea won't it?

[awesome31312]

Wow, yeah, that's pretty sad stuff. But if both parties consent and are underage, they should not be persecuted

[Lethn]

Wow, yeah, that's pretty sad stuff. But if both parties consent and are underage, they should not be persecuted

Welcome to my world lol but this is generally what I'm on about, people are so hateful and paranoid they're going to start prosecuting and killing people for a thought process.

[stevegreer]

What kind of a question is that in the first place? Any criminal can be reformed, it's just a question of how much effort people are willing to put in, but frankly if religious people have their way executing for people for their sexual preferences to me is one step closer to executing people for homosexuality and then any other fetish people have a problem with will be next.

You keep referencing "religious people" in your posts. How exactly is it religious people having their way? What country do you live in? Afganistan? Iran? Saudi Arabia? Those are a few countries that come to mind whose laws are dictated by religion (Islam). Here in the U.S. we have this thing called elections. Religious people and non-religious people alike are allowed to vote and place the people in the positions that actually are the ones who decide who gets executed and for what. They're called judges.

Using the phrase "religious people..." is a crude and biased generalization at best. I'm a religious person, and I hold no desire at all to see laws passed that would require people to be executed for their sexual preference. I could care less if someone is gay. It's not my place to judge.

Back on topic. I can understand the parents wanting to end their child's suffering. I have two problems here though. First, the title of the post says "Victory for women's rights." What does this have to do with women's rights? From reading the article is seems that the mother AND father both made the decision.
Second, could they not have found a more humane way to carry out the deed? I mean, removing the feeding and watering tubes and allowing someone in a coma to die is one thing. But the child was conscious and aware of what was going on. So having her die by dehydration must not have been a pleasant experience at all, I would imagine.