I received word last night that Baby Isaiah, the subject of a bitter futile care case in Canada, died in his parent’s arms after they decided the time had come to stop treatment. They made that decision–not the doctors and not the courts–based on the bad news they received from medical consultants who had reviewed Isaiah’s case.
The media is reporting that happened. From the story:
The parents, who are both in their early 20s, thanked Taylor and the staff for their help. They also paid tribute to thousands of people worldwide who rallied behind them on social networking sites such as Facebook. Some right-to-life and religious groups in Canada and the U.S. also expressed their support. The parents said the outpouring gave them strength in court and when they visited their son each day in hospital. They were surrounded by aunts, uncles and grandparents as Isaiah took his last breath.
Alberta Health Services initially tried to limit the time the Mays were requesting to seek a second medical opinion on Isaiah but then worked closely with the family to make it happen. The organization expressed its condolences to the family. “Physicians and staff who have been involved in caring for baby Isaiah were touched by the May family’s strength. Our deepest sympathies go out to the family.”
No life is unworthy of living. Isaiah was deeply loved by his parents and his circumstances challenged us about how to best care for people with the most serious illnesses and disabilities. I believe that the doctors who wanted to stop treatment, and those who fought to maintain it, earnestly sought what they considered best for the child.
But many futile care cases are not really over medicine, but rather, conflicting values. When those are the stakes, the tremendous benefit of the doubt should go to patients and families, not bioethicists, physicians, or society. Otherwise, the “right to die”–actually the right to refuse unwanted medical treatment–could easily mutate into the duty to die, by having life-sustaining treatment denied. Alas, that is precisely what some in bioethics desire.
Isaiah’s parents will at least know that the decision to stop treatment was theirs, and not that of others. I hope it brings some consolation as they enter a time of grief. Our most sincere sympathies.
March 12th, 2010 | 4:27 pm
[...] See the original post here: Baby Isaiah Succumbs » Secondhand Smoke | A First Things Blog [...]
March 12th, 2010 | 4:47 pm
[...] Follow this link: Baby Isaiah Succumbs » Secondhand Smoke | A First Things Blog [...]
March 12th, 2010 | 6:07 pm
After the second physician offered his opinion, what if the parents still wished keep their baby on life support? Should the government force insurance companies to pay for this care continually? Should the government pay for it? If no one will pay, and the parents can’t afford it, should the hospital be forced to continue without compensation? Or should money determine who dies and when?
March 12th, 2010 | 6:17 pm
“No life is unworthy of living.” Exactly! In that one phrase you refute piled tomes of anti-life sophistry.
March 12th, 2010 | 8:29 pm
“No life is unworthy of living.” Exactly! In that one phrase you refute piled tomes of anti-life sophistry. -Cole Koray
How does that explain or address the parents decision to stop medical treatment?
How does that portray the liberty and freedom of having the right to refuse medical treatments as evil or undesirable? Since when is advocating for such rights and the basic right of self determination “sophistry”?
The parents made a CHOICE.
Obviously their choice was NOT about the value of life but about the value of medical treatments.
Seems this particular case had far fewer doctors involved offering personal, religious or even professional opinions or bought and paid for “expert” testimony in court rooms than other similar cases.
Seems this particular case arrived at its conclusion without a hospice under seige and a media circus (complete with juggler) outside a hospice.
Seems this particular case arrived at its conclusion without endless court proceedings. Without carefully edited and culled video snippets. Without governors. Without congress. Without endless solicitations for donations. Without a horde of media opportunists or a horde of profiteers.
Then again maybe someone will write a book. Or hire an agency and book speaking engagements.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
March 12th, 2010 at 9:00 pm
Canadaversus: Did you read the post? That was the whole point. It was a parental choice to make, not a hospital point to make. The reason it was in court is that the parents were being pressured to pull the care.
March 13th, 2010 | 10:36 am
It is so sad that the parents had to spend their last days with their baby fighting for his right to recieve medical care.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact