Couple in Quebec sues hospital for putting child on life support

o4eduk8ed · #1 03-13-2009, 05:20 PM

Interesting situation. Did the ethics committee overstep its bounds?

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNew...hub=TopStories

Picklesnapper · #2 03-13-2009, 05:29 PM

I'm confused why they wouldn't want the baby to stay alive. I mean I understand all the troubles and what not that comes with a disabled child, but God put that baby here for a reason and she should be allowed to live her life as it is. Not have to be killed and starved to death because the parent's will have to live on one income and have no help...

5LilMonkeys · #3 03-13-2009, 05:29 PM

OOOHHH to be honest I think the way they wanted it done is just terrible. It sounds like they wanted the baby to just starve to death.

As a parent I dont understand how you can make that decision. Obviously in the pic she is no longer on life support and breathing on her own. I think ethically the hospital made the right decision.

Deanner03 · #4 03-13-2009, 05:31 PM

Honestly, and I'm TOTALLY going to get flamed for this. I agree with them. I'm sure they didn't make that decision lightly. If she is deaf, blind and has other severe issues, what kind of quality of life will she have? Ultimately, though, I think it is her parents' decision.
IF it were me, I'm not sure what I would do.

*zips up flame suit*
~~~~~~~

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deanner03

Honestly, and I'm TOTALLY going to get flamed for this. I agree with them. I'm sure they didn't make that decision lightly. If she is deaf, blind and has other severe issues, what kind of quality of life will she have? Ultimately, though, I think it is her parents' decision.
IF it were me, I'm not sure what I would do.

*zips up flame suit*

Ok, I didn't realize this was 2 years ago (nor did I see the pic). Maybe they were doing the best they could with what information they had at the time. But I think to sue over it 2 years later is just ridiculous.
Ok, we have a 2 year old, and we're suing you because of it.

frainfam · #5 03-13-2009, 05:34 PM

the picture in the article is so sweet! it doesn't say what disabilities the little girl actually has. I wonder if the parents really wish their baby didn't live, or they're just sure happy? Maybe they just need money to help care for her? It's a sad story all around

Picklesnapper · #6 03-13-2009, 05:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deanner03

Honestly, and I'm TOTALLY going to get flamed for this. I agree with them. I'm sure they didn't make that decision lightly. If she is deaf, blind and has other severe issues, what kind of quality of life will she have? Ultimately, though, I think it is her parents' decision.
IF it were me, I'm not sure what I would do.

*zips up flame suit*

In theory, I agree with you. It's such a fine line and no one can really tell whether that line was crossed or not.

frainfam · #7 03-13-2009, 05:34 PM

*sue happy, not sure happy

Deanner03 · #8 03-13-2009, 05:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nikkis_little_ladies

In theory, I agree with you. It's such a fine line and no one can really tell whether that line was crossed or not.

The only way to know for sure would be to be there and hear what they heard.

I know I have specific written directives of what happens if I can't make decisions for myself. I don't want feeding tubes or IV nutrition. I don't want colostomy bags (permanently, I mean) or to be on a respirator. I'd want to go quietly rather than be trapped in my own body.

Picklesnapper · #9 03-13-2009, 05:37 PM

I think they're suing now because like the article said, mom is out of work because the ethics committee decided their child fate for them. So they think that because the ethics committee made them keep their baby alive they should be held responsible for their money problems now.

Trishalynn · #10 03-13-2009, 05:57 PM

I do think the hospital over stepped their bounds on this one. It would be different if they went to a court and got it over ruled, but them (ethics board) deciding that they should step in and decide what happens with the child rather than the parents would be pretty insulting. From the article it didn't sound like they just didn't want their dd because she was handicapped, but because they didn't think she would have a good quality of life. Its a hard call to say if the parents were right or not. I had a friend who's baby had complications during birth and had so many problems (blind, mute, severly mentally handicapped, etc.. the doctors said basically they could keep him alive with a feeding tube, but all he'd ever be able to do is lay in bed) and they decided to remove the artificial feeding. It was heartbreaking for them and those around them, but they felt they were doing what was best for their child. The hospital would have taken that away from this couple. We don't know what life is like for this little girl now or anything. While I'm not a supporter of removing artificial feeding, its hard to judge who was in the right, because I'm not involved in the situation.

urchin_grey · #11 03-13-2009, 06:00 PM

OMG. I seriously almost just threw up my beans and nachos.

When I was 22 weeks pregnant, we were told that we should "terminate the pregnancy" because they were sure that Bram would be stillborn. We told them no way. We wanted to at least get the chance to meet our little boy no matter what. Well, he was perfectly fine, and now we have the most awesomest, most beautiful 3 year old evah -- who cannot walk nor speak.

Hmm, maybe I should sue, what do ya think?

GGisShort · #12 03-13-2009, 06:07 PM

Where would you draw the line on who was disabled enough to be condemned to death and who was maybe only a little disabled and could therefore be allowed to live?

urchin_grey · #13 03-13-2009, 06:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GGisShort

Where would you draw the line on who was disabled enough to be condemned to death and who was maybe only a little disabled and could therefore be allowed to live?

That's what I'm screaming. If they don't want her, I'll freaking take her.

Picklesnapper · #14 03-13-2009, 06:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trishalynn

I do think the hospital over stepped their bounds on this one. It would be different if they went to a court and got it over ruled, but them (ethics board) deciding that they should step in and decide what happens with the child rather than the parents would be pretty insulting. From the article it didn't sound like they just didn't want their dd because she was handicapped, but because they didn't think she would have a good quality of life. Its a hard call to say if the parents were right or not. I had a friend who's baby had complications during birth and had so many problems (blind, mute, severly mentally handicapped, etc.. the doctors said basically they could keep him alive with a feeding tube, but all he'd ever be able to do is lay in bed) and they decided to remove the artificial feeding. It was heartbreaking for them and those around them, but they felt they were doing what was best for their child. The hospital would have taken that away from this couple. We don't know what life is like for this little girl now or anything. While I'm not a supporter of removing artificial feeding, its hard to judge who was in the right, because I'm not involved in the situation.

I know we are not there and we do not know the WHOLE story to this. But from everything that I read on this couple and this situation, it seems fair to assume that they were not doing what was best for the baby but rather what would have been best for their future. In the article it does not state anything about them suing for the quality of life factor, it simply says that they're broke and living on one income.

butterflylr · #15 03-13-2009, 06:38 PM

Wow, I'll have to come back to this when I have more time...