Allowing premature babies to die

[Demona]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3693204.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3706770.stm

From top source:
Charlotte was born three months prematurely at St Mary's Hospital, Portsmouth, in October 2003, and measured only five inches long.

She has never left hospital, and has already stopped breathing several times due to serious heart and lung problems.

Doctors say she will not survive beyond infancy because her lungs are so severely damaged.

Her parents, chef Darren Wyatt, 32, and his wife Debbie, 23, have been told that, in the event of another critical episode, it is prepared to keep her alive long enough for them to attend at her bedside, but insists it would be "against the child's interests" artificially to resuscitate her.

Case currently occuring in the UK where doctors think a child's quality of life is so poor and death is inevitable so her suffering should not be prolonged. They are not suggesting complete removal of treatment, but if the child should experience breating difficulties again, they do not want to put her through the pain of ventilation. The child's parents want to give her every chance to live as long as possible, saying that she recognises them and takes comfort from their presence.


What do you think is in the best interests of the child? Is this different from what you would want to do in such a situation?


To widen the discussion: given the chance of death is high, as is the chance of physical and/or mental disabilities even should the child survive, do you think everything should be done to keep extremely premature babies alive?

[Quamie]

We have talked about this being that I am pg at this time. And we have come the decision that if saving the life of our child will be harmful with out a very good rate of sucess then we will just use comfort measures for our child. I see no need in constant pain to keep them alive for a short amount of time, living it in pain and maybe fear.

it is a very hard decision to make and one very personal to each family.

[Jory]

What do you think is in the best interests of the child?

I think the best interest of the child would to allow him or her to die without suffering.

Is this different from what you would want to do in such a situation?

I would hope that I would have the stregnth to let go, but I don't know what I would do if faced with this kind of situation. How much hope can one have before it becomes unrealistic and unhealthy. On the other hand, it is horribly sad to have no hope at all.

To widen the discussion: given the chance of death is high, as is the chance of physical and/or mental disabilities even should the child survive, do you think everything should be done to keep extremely premature babies alive?

The realist part of me says no, everything should not be done to keep some premature babies alive. The mother in me says I would probably fight the good fight even if the results were not good.

How is that for flip flop answers? Sorry, but it is something you can't really say what you would do unless you were in that situation.

[Quamie]

I dont think any answer is a right answer. I would hope that no mother has to make that decision, but it happens. And Jory I know how you feel. I say one thing but when faced with the decision WHO KNOWS, how we would react.

[IdahoMom]

How is that for flip flop answers? Sorry, but it is something you can't really say what you would do unless you were in that situation.

I agree. As a mother who has pretty much been through exactly what you described, I would have to say you just can't know. Even now, I still do not know what I would do if the same circumstances came up. There are just far too many variables and emotions involved.

[kingclick]

Short answer....I think it's sick for parents to keep a poor child alive so long knowing it will die and have a horrible and painful life. I see no problems with parents putting a DNR on a terminal child.