Baby's life hangs on Texas law

  • Thread starter Thread starter rayne89
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

rayne89

Guest
news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070409/ap_on_re_us/futile_care;_ylt=Arvq3TJ.2rh_YT5lozNB9jhvzwcF
AUSTIN, Texas - As 17-month-old Emilio Gonzales lies in a hospital, hooked up to tubes to help him breathe and eat, his mother holds him close and cherishes every movement.
Catarina Gonzales knows her baby is terminally ill and that one day she’ll have to let go. But it’s not yet time, she and her attorneys contend in their legal clash with hospital officials who say it’s best to stop Emilio’s life-sustaining treatment.
A Texas law lets the hospital make that life-or-death call. The latest legal dispute over the law — Emilio’s case — goes to court again Tuesday, the day his life support is set to end.
Click to expand...
 
Guess who signed that statute in Law? Hint: it wasn’t Bill Clinton.
 
Eh? Since when should hospitals be able to make calls like that. Thats horrible!
 
Apparently, money is not at the root of this as the child is covered under Medicaid.

The Hospital panel decided on the basis of quality of life. That is they believe that having the tubes causes the child unnecessary pain. According to the article, the child cannot breathe on his own, so he needs the machine to breathe for him, he cannot eat or drink on his own, so he needs a mechanical delivery of food and water. Probably the worst thing though is he needs to have secretions sucked out of his lungs to keep him from suffocating. That would be the painful part for the child. The child’s brain centers have been damaged so there is no chance of recovery from this state.

Catholic ethicists say that using extraordinary means to preserve life is not necessary. The hospital plans to end the life support when the child’s family can be present along with social workers, chaplains, and whatever other support group they need. It’s tragic, but at least the hospital seems to be trying to deal with this in a matter that is considerate of both the child and the family.
 
I’m not clear on the scenario here. Is he incapable of breathing on his own? Or is he merely comatose and just needs to be fed?

It is morally permissible to cease extra-ordinary means and let nature take its course, as in the case of a respirator solely keeping a person alive.

Feeding tubes, however, are ordinary means, since everyone needs food.

But then I don’t know the real story.
 
According to the article, the child cannot breathe on his own, so he needs the machine to breathe for him, he cannot eat or drink on his own, so he needs a mechanical delivery of food and water. Probably the worst thing though is he needs to have secretions sucked out of his lungs to keep him from suffocating. That would be the painful part for the child. The child’s brain centers have been damaged so there is no chance of recovery from this state.

Catholic ethicists say that using extraordinary means to preserve life is not necessary. The hospital plans to end the life support when the child’s family can be present along with social workers, chaplains, and whatever other support group they need. It’s tragic, but at least the hospital seems to be trying to deal with this in a matter that is considerate of both the child and the family.
Click to expand...
I am 110% pro-life from conception till natural death - no exceptions. But I do have to say that, according to the description of the post above, that this sounds like overly extreme measures to me. There is a time to die, and I don’t think that allowing this child to die naturally would be in contradiction to a pro-life position.

How very sad for all concerned - I’ll keep them in my prayers.

~Liza
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top