MEMBER LOGIN




Search First Things

Advanced Search

RSS

Secondhand Smoke
Archives

Categories

Monthly


« Previous  |Home|  Next »         

Wednesday, November 4, 2009, 1:00 PM
Wesley J. Smith

Most contested cases of removing babies or profoundly disabled adults from needed life support have involved those with serious brain injuries or cognitive impairments. But once the idea that dead is better than disabled takes hold, it will soon spread to those with physical disabilities.

Now, in the UK, parents are fighting over withdrawing life support from a seriously disabled one-year-old child who is cognitively normal. From the story:

The mother of a chronically ill baby has defended her court battle with the child’s father to have his life support machine turned off. The boy, known only as RB, has congenital myasthenic syndrome, a rare neuromuscular condition that severely limits limb movement and the ability to breathe independently. He has been hospitalized since birth. Doctors want to take the 1-year-old off a ventilator, which helps him breathe, but the boy’s father, who is separated from his mother, opposes the plan. The hospital trust which provides his care has taken the case to the High Court. If the trust wins, it would be the first time a British court has ruled against the wishes of a parent whose child does not suffer from brain damage.

In a statement, the mother’s lawyer, Anthony Fairweather said: “RB’s mother has sat by her son’s bedside every day since he was born. “In her mind the intolerable suffering experienced by her son must outweigh her own personal grief should she lose her child,” the statement said. But lawyers for the father argue the baby’s brain is unaffected by the condition and that he can see, hear, feel and recognize his parents. They will submit video footage, which they say shows Baby RB playing with toys, enjoying and listening to music and interacting with his parents. The father argues that a tracheotomy, where a hole is made in the neck to allow air to reach his lungs, would allow his son to leave hospital and be cared for at home.

This is an important case. First, shouldn’t the benefit of the doubt go to life?  Second, shouldn’t everything be done to try and help the boy live instead of die?  Third, that a hospital arguing to end life is very alarming.  Finally, if the hospital/mother win the case, the message that would be sent by taking a child out of life against the wishes of a parent solely because of disability is that dead is better than disabled.  As a society, do we really want to accept that meme?

9 Comments

    Brian
    November 4th, 2009 | 2:20 pm

    He who pays the piper, picks the tune. If your medical care is 100% paid for the government, you belong to the government. You are their property. They can withdraw their care of you when they choose.

    UK Court to Rule Whether Baby Better Off Dead Than Disabled … « penggaram
    November 4th, 2009 | 4:05 pm

    [...] Excerpt from:  UK Court to Rule Whether Baby Better Off Dead Than Disabled … [...]

    All In One Information » UK Court to Rule Whether Baby Better Off Dead Than Disabled …
    November 4th, 2009 | 5:51 pm

    [...] the original:  UK Court to Rule Whether Baby Better Off Dead Than Disabled … This entry is filed under Baby. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 [...]

    Ronald Devins
    November 4th, 2009 | 6:03 pm

    Disgusting. This should have been thrown out of court, just as would be the case if I petitioned the court to kill you because I would want to die if you had some characteristic I hated.

    From superficial reading, CMS is far from the worst condition a person can have, and there are treatments available. Since the defect seems so localized, I would not be surprised if a cure or livable therapy (as is the case with diabetes and epilepsy) were discovered within the next decade.

    Ianthe
    November 4th, 2009 | 10:16 pm

    Hospitals are ALREADY doing it. An egregiously bad one that’s like a hospital out of a Stephen King novel did it to my mother. The place needs to be shut down, of course, but also concerning is that other hospitals didn’t raise hell about what it did.

    lome
    November 4th, 2009 | 10:50 pm

    The reason for Abortion? Inconvenience.
    The motivation behind it ?Evil from the bowels of Hell!

    Convenient concept from the number one enemy of men..Killing his children with his participation.
    “killing several birds in one shot?”

    UK Court to Rule Whether Baby Better Off Dead Than Disabled - Saturday Evening Posters
    November 8th, 2009 | 4:32 pm

    [...] Court to Rule Whether Baby Better Off Dead Than Disabled First Things/Secondhand Smoke ^ Most contested cases of removing babies or profoundly disabled adults from needed life support [...]

    Sexism in Baby Death Decision Case–or Cynical Use of Traditionalism? » Secondhand Smoke | A First Things Blog
    November 9th, 2009 | 5:39 pm

    [...] off the life support of a baby because he is seriously disabled–although cognitively fine, as discussed here before–says that the hospitals like to follow what mothers want in cases such as this.  From the [...]

    It’s Scary Time For People With Disabilities in the UK » Secondhand Smoke | A First Things Blog
    November 10th, 2009 | 6:30 am

    [...] Myerson’s piece was published in the midst of the “Baby RB case,”  headline-making lawsuit in which a mother and father are battling over whether to [...]