This discussion is closed.
Weejimmie
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#21
Report 14 years ago
#21
(Original post by randdom)
... I have to go with foolfarin on this one that the chances are the the medics best interests are the same as those of the child. Guarenteed that may not be the case in all the time but purely on this particular case I would say that it is.
Are they? I think that many adult patients in such a position would ask that nothing be done to keep them living. A baby cannot say that, though. It is the parents who want their child to live and look for anything that may be a sign of hope and the doctors who may know intellectually that there is no hope but are surprisingly often emotionally caught up on keeping children alive and hoping for a miracle.
0
Fluffy
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#22
Report 14 years ago
#22
(Original post by randdom)
It probably just depends on the hospital that you are in. I know that when I went to the renal department the consultant I spoke deffinately wasn't worrying out bed blocking. I know that you were playing devils advocate but I really doubt that in paediatric cases bed blocking is an issue. It may be in other departments (I haven't come accross it yet) but I don't think it would be in departments like paediatrics and other similar ones. I have to go with foolfarin on this one that the chances are the the medics best interests are the same as those of the child. Guarenteed that may not be the case in all the time but purely on this particular case I would say that it is.

It's not usually the consultants that come out with this ***** - it's usally their SHOs---> :secruity: :secruity: :secruity: And I have heard sunch comments, and not as one offs - even on a CLIC ward! And not just in one NHS trust!
0
Jamie
Badges: 18
#23
Report 14 years ago
#23
(Original post by Fluffy)
It's not usually the consultants that come out with this ***** - it's usally their SHOs---> :secruity: :secruity: :secruity: And I have heard sunch comments, and not as one offs - even on a CLIC ward! And not just in one NHS trust!
see ive found that most the british shos to be nice as hell. the asian ones have been dubious (asian as in have recently qaulified from asia rather thn britsh asian) and consultants... well my last one was sooooo nice, very touchy feely, and my most recent one...very old school, ignores patient, talks about them not to them etc.
But like i say, my issue was with your 'most medics' quote, and i honest to god think (and couldnt think in good conscience otherwise) 99.9% medics have best interests of the patient to heart.
0
Weejimmie
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#24
Report 14 years ago
#24
(Original post by foolfarian)
and i honest to god think (and couldnt think in good conscience otherwise) 99.9% medics have best interests of the patient to heart.
The problem is that in acase like this no-one knows or can know what are the best [or least harmful and hurtful] interests of the patient.
0
yawn
Badges: 13
#25
Report 14 years ago
#25
From the video shown on TV that was recently recorded by Charlotte's parents you see a little baby girl who seemed to be remarkably alert, kicking her feet, looking all around her - bright eyed. Not someone who is supposed to be near-vegetative and in constant pain!

It would be a crime if this child was not resuscitated if need be before the doctors responsible for her care were compelled to produce an up-to-date review of her condition, corroborated by evidence that contradicted the visual evidence of the video recording mentioned in previous paragraph, to the court - then a more informed judgement could be made. I wonder if the judge who refused to change the previous judgement actually saw the video?
0
yawn
Badges: 13
#26
Report 14 years ago
#26
Do members not feel a sense of discomfort that the wishes of parents who are responsible for rearing their children in all other aspects, can be over-ruled by 'the establishment'?

This is happening in all sorts of ways from providing abortifacients without the knowledge of the parents, contraceptives to children under the age of consent without the parents knowledge and making life and death decisions on their children against the wishes of the parent.

Frightening use of power
0
Weejimmie
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#27
Report 14 years ago
#27
Assessment of a child's abilities and their future life is a long and complex process: going by extracts from one video is not a very reliable method. incidentally, yawn, as- presumably- you think Charlotte will go to heaven or hell for much longer than she will live on earth, surely her life or death ought to be trivialities in your eyes.
(Original post by yawn)
Do members not feel a sense of discomfort that the wishes of parents who are responsible for rearing their children in all other aspects, can be over-ruled by 'the establishment'?
All other aspects? We do not allow people to rear their children if they maltreat them in other ways. AS a good roman catholic your life is dominated by an "establishment" too: it is merely a different establishment with rather different views to the rest of us.
Frightening use of power."
All power is frightening, so is its use if we receive it. it is better though if people must justify their power and the way they exercise it before other people, not before a hypothetical creator and its alleged agents on earth.
0
yawn
Badges: 13
#28
Report 14 years ago
#28
(Original post by Weejimmie)
Assessment of a child's abilities and their future life is a long and complex process: going by extracts from one video is not a very reliable method. incidentally, yawn, as- presumably- you think Charlotte will go to heaven or hell for much longer than she will live on earth, surely her life or death ought to be trivialities in your eyes. All other aspects? We do not allow people to rear their children if they maltreat them in other ways. AS a good roman catholic your life is dominated by an "establishment" too: it is merely a different establishment with rather different views to the rest of us. All power is frightening, so is its use if we receive it. it is better though if people must justify their power and the way they exercise it before other people, not before a hypothetical creator and its alleged agents on earth.
Thank you for making presumptions on what/how I react. That is all they are - presumption - and your presumption doesn't make it fact!

This thread is about whether a 'profession' should have the power to make decisions on whether a human should live or die. They have the means to help her to live - they will make the choice whether they will or not. That is what I find difficult to accept, especially when it goes against the wishes of her parent.
0
randdom
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#29
Report 14 years ago
#29
(Original post by yawn)
Do members not feel a sense of discomfort that the wishes of parents who are responsible for rearing their children in all other aspects, can be over-ruled by 'the establishment'?

This is happening in all sorts of ways from providing abortifacients without the knowledge of the parents, contraceptives to children under the age of consent without the parents knowledge and making life and death decisions on their children against the wishes of the parent.

Frightening use of power
I do genuinly feel that in some cases the best interests of the child are not the best interests of the parents. It is cases like this when I think you have to look at the child interests. In this case the parents understandably don't want to have their baby die, they will want to try anything to keep this baby alive even if it is only for a few extra months and the baby will have to be pumped full of pain killers during this time. Obviously there will be constant monitering and if their is a change the doctors aren't just going to ignor it, I severly doubt that the doctors want this baby to die they just don't want her to suffer.

I don't think it should be up to the parents to decide whether their child has a baby or goes on the pill. If their is a younge child who comes into a family planning clinic or GUM clinic then social services are informed (by younge I mean 13 or under). If the child doesn't want to tell the parents then the GP's and doctors are bound by patient confidenciallity and can't legally tell the parents. They can encourage the child to tell their parents but that is all. I think that this is the way that it should be, the child is not just a further extention of their parents they are an individual and should be treated as such.
0
Weejimmie
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#30
Report 14 years ago
#30
(Original post by yawn)
Thank you for making presumptions on what/how I react. That is all they are - presumption - and your presumption doesn't make it fact!
However, they are very reasonable inferences. As you say, they are presumptions not facts. The fact that you don't refute them suggests that they are well-grounded, however.

This thread is about whether a 'profession' should have the power to make decisions on whether a human should live or die. They have the means to help her to live - they will make the choice whether they will or not. That is what I find difficult to accept, especially when it goes against the wishes of her parent.
You have not explained why- as someone who belives that earthly life is a brief hiatus- you are so concerned with imposing it in conditions which people who have studied and worked with children with similar disabilities think will involve extreme suffering and an early death. The doctors here have seen far more babies in that condition and are in a good position to judge what kind of life Charlotte will have. As you say "they will make the choice whether they will or not"- refusal to use power is as much an exercise of power as using it. In this case a judge is also involved- again they have power whether they use it or not, whether they want to use it or not.
You appear to think that the parent has absolute power over the child: would you still think this if the parent chose to let the child die? This is not a rhetorical question. How far do you think a parent's power over a child goes? Presumably- again- you wouldn't go along with the ancient Romans who said that parents had powers of life and death over all their children for all their lives, but where would you draw the line? Would you say that a parent can keep a child illiterate or bind a child's feet?
0
yawn
Badges: 13
#31
Report 14 years ago
#31
(Original post by randdom)
I do genuinly feel that in some cases the best interests of the child are not the best interests of the parents. It is cases like this when I think you have to look at the child interests. In this case the parents understandably don't want to have their baby die, they will want to try anything to keep this baby alive even if it is only for a few extra months and the baby will have to be pumped full of pain killers during this time. Obviously there will be constant monitering and if their is a change the doctors aren't just going to ignor it, I severly doubt that the doctors want this baby to die they just don't want her to suffer.

I don't think it should be up to the parents to decide whether their child has a baby or goes on the pill. If their is a younge child who comes into a family planning clinic or GUM clinic then social services are informed (by younge I mean 13 or under). If the child doesn't want to tell the parents then the GP's and doctors are bound by patient confidenciallity and can't legally tell the parents. They can encourage the child to tell their parents but that is all. I think that this is the way that it should be, the child is not just a further extention of their parents they are an individual and should be treated as such.
It is hard sometimes to have empathy for the opinions and feelings of another when we are in direct conflict with their attitude.

I doubt most parents would agree that children should have autonomy to make mature decisions on whether or not they 'go on the pill' or have an abortion when they are 13 years or younger. Even at 16 most do not have sufficient maturity to be able to anticipate the potential consequences of their decisions.

Regarding the opinions of the medical 'experts' - they very frequently make errors - this is why I do not have the 'blind' trust that some others might have that their opinions are necessarily correct. I give you an example - someone I know very well has a chronic, severe, life threatening lung disease. They know their body very well and they know how best to treat it because they are the one who experiences the effects on their lungs from differing treatments. So often, in the past, they have suffered because of treatment meted out by an 'expert' that is the wrong treatment for them. They have learnt to disagree with the 'expert' by reminding them that they are responsible to a large extent on managing their own illness. I have said before as I say again - the so-called 'experts' are not 'experts' on the individual - the individual, or in the case of a child, the parent - is the expert.
0
randdom
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#32
Report 14 years ago
#32
(Original post by yawn)
It is hard sometimes to have empathy for the opinions and feelings of another when we are in direct conflict with their attitude.
I think that I can empathise with the fear of loosing someone. Guarenteed I have no children and I don't know what it is like to see your child dieing, I can't even try to imagen what it must be like. However I have a mother who is currently dieing slowly and I understand that desparate want to have someone you love stay with you, that want not to loose someone that is so important to you. However I don't necissarly think that I know best. I am sure that there are things that could be done for my mum as there are things that could be done for Charlotte but you have to question whether it is really best for the person. Will prolonging someones life for a short amount of time really outweigh the pain that they will suffer. So like I said I deffinately can empathise even if their oppinions do conflict with my own.

I doubt most parents would agree that children should have autonomy to make mature decisions on whether or not they 'go on the pill' or have an abortion when they are 13 years or younger. Even at 16 most do not have sufficient maturity to be able to anticipate the potential consequences of their decisions.
In terms of going on the pill surely it is better for a 13 year old to go on the pill than for a 13 year old to get pregnant. If there was a law which stated that the parents had to know when their child went on the pill or had and abortion then the sad fact is that children would probably be less likely to go to their doctor because they wouldn't want their parents to know. We live in a country with a very high teenage pregnancy rate and yes this is an issue.

Regarding the opinions of the medical 'experts' - they very frequently make errors - this is why I do not have the 'blind' trust that some others might have that their opinions are necessarily correct.
I have said before as I say again - the so-called 'experts' are not 'experts' on the individual - the individual, or in the case of a child, the parent - is the expert.
I don't have blind trust in experts, I know that they are human and they can make mistakes. However they are called experts for a reason. They have a good understanding of the illness and the ways to treat it. They also have a good idea about the prognosis of the patient. I understand that in the case of an adult yes they are an expert in their own body. However I don't think that transfers to the parents being the expert on the childs body, especially a child this younge. An adult is an expert because they are feeling what is going on in their body. A parent isn't feeling what the child is therefore they aren't the expert. Plus they really want to believe that their child is getting much better, they want to believe that their child is going to live. Therefor their judgement may be slightly off. I really don't think that they are the expert.
0
yawn
Badges: 13
#33
Report 14 years ago
#33
(Original post by randdom)
I think that I can empathise with the fear of loosing someone. Guarenteed I have no children and I don't know what it is like to see your child dieing, I can't even try to imagen what it must be like. However I have a mother who is currently dieing slowly and I understand that desparate want to have someone you love stay with you, that want not to loose someone that is so important to you. However I don't necissarly think that I know best. I am sure that there are things that could be done for my mum as there are things that could be done for Charlotte but you have to question whether it is really best for the person. Will prolonging someones life for a short amount of time really outweigh the pain that they will suffer. So like I said I deffinately can empathise even if their oppinions do conflict with my own.



In terms of going on the pill surely it is better for a 13 year old to go on the pill than for a 13 year old to get pregnant. If there was a law which stated that the parents had to know when their child went on the pill or had and abortion then the sad fact is that children would probably be less likely to go to their doctor because they wouldn't want their parents to know. We live in a country with a very high teenage pregnancy rate and yes this is an issue.





I don't have blind trust in experts, I know that they are human and they can make mistakes. However they are called experts for a reason. They have a good understanding of the illness and the ways to treat it. They also have a good idea about the prognosis of the patient. I understand that in the case of an adult yes they are an expert in their own body. However I don't think that transfers to the parents being the expert on the childs body, especially a child this younge. An adult is an expert because they are feeling what is going on in their body. A parent isn't feeling what the child is therefore they aren't the expert. Plus they really want to believe that their child is getting much better, they want to believe that their child is going to live. Therefor their judgement may be slightly off. I really don't think that they are the expert.
We might be confusing the word expert with the word professional. Ask any parent whether they are the expert on their own child or whether a professional is the expert on their child. I know what the answer will be as I've had to ask many parents that particular question.
0
Weejimmie
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#34
Report 14 years ago
#34
(Original post by yawn)
We might be confusing the word expert with the word professional. Ask any parent whether they are the expert on their own child or whether a professional is the expert on their child. I know what the answer will be as I've had to ask many parents that particular question.
But, comparing an "expert" parent and a professional expert, which could assess and predict the child's abilities, problems and behaviour more reliably?
0
randdom
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#35
Report 14 years ago
#35
(Original post by yawn)
We might be confusing the word expert with the word professional. Ask any parent whether they are the expert on their own child or whether a professional is the expert on their child. I know what the answer will be as I've had to ask many parents that particular question.
I can see where you are comming from. However I think in the case of this baby the parent can't be considered the expert. The doctors are looking at all the evidence not only the way that the child appears to be responding but also the results of other tests such as scans ect so they can see the full extent of her problems. Yes the parents should have imput I am not saying they shouldn't however they aren't feeling what their baby is feeling (which is why patients are considered the expert in their own body) No one is feeling what this baby is feeling so they have to resort to other tests which the doctors are trained to moniter.
0
yawn
Badges: 13
#36
Report 14 years ago
#36
(Original post by Weejimmie)
But, comparing an "expert" parent and a professional expert, which could assess and predict the child's abilities, problems and behaviour more reliably?
The parents. Remember, the professional is not the expert on the particular child - how could they be? The expert is the one who nurtures, lives with, feeds, clothes and looks after the child 24/7. The professional get a 'pen picture' at that point in time.

Medicine is not a finite science. Professionals cannot and do not know all the answers. Their opinions are just that - opinions. Therefore those opinions have not more validity that the intimate knowledge that the parents have on their child.

There really should be more humility amongst the medical profession imo.
0
blissy
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#37
Report 14 years ago
#37
(Original post by yawn)
The parents. Remember, the professional is not the expert on the particular child - how could they be? The expert is the one who nurtures, lives with, feeds, clothes and looks after the child 24/7. The professional get a 'pen picture' at that point in time.
But isn't she living in the hospital still? The machine nurtures and feeds her, the doctors and nurses in that particular ward live with her, clothe her and look after her. The professionals don't get a pen picture, they simply get see a situation that is freer from emotion.
0
yawn
Badges: 13
#38
Report 14 years ago
#38
(Original post by blissy)
But isn't she living in the hospital still? The machine nurtures and feeds her, the doctors and nurses in that particular ward live with her, clothe her and look after her. The professionals don't get a pen picture, they simply get see a situation that is freer from emotion.
The doctors and nurses don't live with her, clothe her and look after her. All the personal care she is given comes from her parents.

If you visited a scbu/paediatric ward you would see that once the baby/child is able to be held all those tasks are carried out by the parent - except when the parent does not visit - which would be a rarity. If a parent was absenting themselves there would presumably not be an interest in fighting for the life of the child.

What are we if not human? Are we robots devoid of emotion? There is no one in this particular case who could be said to be freer from emotion. Whether it's wanting the child to survive against all odds or maybe not wanting to admit that perhaps they got it wrong.
0
frost105
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#39
Report Thread starter 14 years ago
#39
(Original post by blissy)
But isn't she living in the hospital still? The machine nurtures and feeds her, the doctors and nurses in that particular ward live with her, clothe her and look after her. The professionals don't get a pen picture, they simply get see a situation that is freer from emotion.
Plus in nicu there is often than not a continuity of care so its the same doctors and nurses so they are seeing the full picture too.
0
Howard
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#40
Report 14 years ago
#40
(Original post by yawn)
The doctors and nurses don't live with her, clothe her and look after her. All the personal care she is given comes from her parents.

If you visited a scbu/paediatric ward you would see that once the baby/child is able to be held all those tasks are carried out by the parent - except when the parent does not visit - which would be a rarity. If a parent was absenting themselves there would presumably not be an interest in fighting for the life of the child.

What are we if not human? Are we robots devoid of emotion? There is no one in this particular case who could be said to be freer from emotion. Whether it's wanting the child to survive against all odds or maybe not wanting to admit that perhaps they got it wrong.
The parents DO NOT know more about her medical condition than the doctors. Period. The parents are waiting for a miracle that ain't gonna happen. Jesus IS NOT going to pay a visit and release this child from suffering.
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Would you turn to a teacher if you were being bullied?

Yes (34)
25.19%
No (101)
74.81%

Watched Threads

View All