• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Ventilated quadriplegic at one years old.

D

DCal430

Diamond Member
The local paper did a story on a 1 year old girl who has SMA1, which has resulted in her being a quadriplegic, who is on a ventilator at all times. She also cannot swallowing and is being fed via a feeding tube. She basically has no movement in her voluntary muscles. She is unlikely to live pass two or 3 years old. Should children like this just be euthanized to end their suffering. I mean what kind of life could she have in the next year or two.
 
Jesus, keeping someone alive under those conditions is barbaric. You don't need to euthanize someone in that condition, just stop keeping them alive artificially. Vent dependent adult quadriplegics can already choose to discontinue the ventilator and that isn't considered euthanasia (they're sedated when this happens so they don't feel like they're suffocating.)
 
Even though children like this have normal cognitive ability, I just don't see how they can have any time of meaningful life. Their suffering will only get worst and worst.
 
ichy said:
Jesus, keeping someone alive under those conditions is barbaric. You don't need to euthanize someone in that condition, just stop keeping them alive artificially. Vent dependent adult quadriplegics can already choose to discontinue the ventilator and that isn't considered euthanasia (they're sedated when this happens so they don't feel like they're suffocating.)
Click to expand...

qft
 
DCal430 said:
The local paper did a story on a 1 year old girl who has SMA1, which has resulted in her being a quadriplegic, who is on a ventilator at all times. She also cannot swallowing and is being fed via a feeding tube. She basically has no movement in her voluntary muscles. She is unlikely to live pass two or 3 years old. Should children like this just be euthanized to end their suffering. I mean what kind of life could she have in the next year or two.
Click to expand...
The parents can choose to take her off life support?
 
DCal430 said:
The local paper did a story on a 1 year old girl who has SMA1, which has resulted in her being a quadriplegic, who is on a ventilator at all times. She also cannot swallowing and is being fed via a feeding tube. She basically has no movement in her voluntary muscles. She is unlikely to live pass two or 3 years old. Should children like this just be euthanized to end their suffering. I mean what kind of life could she have in the next year or two.
Click to expand...

Most definitely keeping them alive is a form of cruel and unusual punishment. But them I'm for making all types of consenting euthanasia legal.
 
ichy said:
Jesus, keeping someone alive under those conditions is barbaric. You don't need to euthanize someone in that condition, just stop keeping them alive artificially. Vent dependent adult quadriplegics can already choose to discontinue the ventilator and that isn't considered euthanasia (they're sedated when this happens so they don't feel like they're suffocating.)
Click to expand...

In the immortal words of Shakespeare, a rose by any other name would make you just as dead. I wish our society would quit pussyfooting around this issue and come to terms with the fact that in some cases dying is better than living. For an example of our inconsistency, if a doctor stopped treating someone's TB nobody would say that they merely stopped keeping them alive artificially (which, strictly speaking, they were).
 
ichy said:
Jesus, keeping someone alive under those conditions is barbaric. You don't need to euthanize someone in that condition, just stop keeping them alive artificially. Vent dependent adult quadriplegics can already choose to discontinue the ventilator and that isn't considered euthanasia (they're sedated when this happens so they don't feel like they're suffocating.)
Click to expand...




Are you a parent? Yes, it may seem barbaric to you ... but once you become a parent your entire universe changes. If you are a good parent your focus (in a second) changes from you to the child.

I can understand why someone would go this way ...
 
dud said:
Are you a parent? Yes, it may seem barbaric to you ... but once you become a parent your entire universe changes. If you are a good parent your focus (in a second) changes from you to the child.

I can understand why someone would go this way ...
Click to expand...

selfish reasons - obviously not in the baby's best interest.
 
DCal430 said:
The local paper did a story on a 1 year old girl who has SMA1, which has resulted in her being a quadriplegic, who is on a ventilator at all times. She also cannot swallowing and is being fed via a feeding tube. She basically has no movement in her voluntary muscles. She is unlikely to live pass two or 3 years old. Should children like this just be euthanized to end their suffering. I mean what kind of life could she have in the next year or two.
Click to expand...

A. No they should not be euthanized. A one year old isn't the same thing as a puppy with say a heart defect. The choice is with the parents, not by some entity or the likes of yourself who thinks they know better than the parents of what is best for THEIR child.

B. Until you have child of your own you won't know the experience of being a parent. It takes a lot of courage to take grandpaw off the vent. Now what kind of courage would it take to take your one year old and let him/her die?

Now before you get your panties in a bunch, understand I am in the medical field and have done plenty of extreme measures to keep people alive. Mostly because the family doesn't want to face the reality of the situation or the family has no advance directive by grandma of what her wishes are. So I understand the quality of life issue.

And BTW, you don't know what kind of life she is going to have. At least her parents will be there so she can enjoy the last 2 years of her life being loved by her parents.
 
JohnnyGage said:
A. No they should not be euthanized. A one year old isn't the same thing as a puppy with say a heart defect. The choice is with the parents, not by some entity or the likes of yourself who thinks they know better than the parents of what is best for THEIR child.

B. Until you have child of your own you won't know the experience of being a parent. It takes a lot of courage to take grandpaw off the vent. Now what kind of courage would it take to take your one year old and let him/her die?

Now before you get your panties in a bunch, understand I am in the medical field and have done plenty of extreme measures to keep people alive. Mostly because the family doesn't want to face the reality of the situation or the family has no advance directive by grandma of what her wishes are. So I understand the quality of life issue.

And BTW, you don't know what kind of life she is going to have. At least her parents will be there so she can enjoy the last 2 years of her life being loved by her parents.
Click to expand...

I wasn't trying to condemn the parents. Since I am not in this situation, I can never fully understand what they are going through.
 
JohnnyGage said:
And BTW, you don't know what kind of life she is going to have. At least her parents will be there so she can enjoy the last 2 years of her life being loved by her parents.
Click to expand...

We do know that when she has an itch, she can't scratch it.

We do know that when she is in pain, she can't express where. Hell, she can't even attempt to alleviate the pain by moving her body to a more comfortable position.

Do you really think a 1, 2, or 3 year old quadriplegic is capable of enjoying life?

Parents are being very selfish here. Let nature take it's course after sedating her or putting her in a medically induced coma.
 
Ns1 said:
selfish reasons - obviously not in the baby's best interest.
Click to expand...

this. I understand the "parent's love" issue, but in the end, it is nothing but pure selfishness. if your child is born and can not live outside of a ventilator--or at any age, because injured/sick and placed on a ventilator--then extending that life beyond medical rationality is pure selfishness.

don't get me wrong--it's very easy to convince yourself that your love is too great to let your child go, and that you only want what is best for them--but the truth of the matter is that you just can't let go.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top