Fight over baby's life support divides ethicists

Ziggy Stardust

Absolutely Sane
Joined
Nov 23, 2005
Messages
27,571
Location
High above the ice
http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/04/25/baby.emilio/index.html

Fight over baby's life support divides ethicists

AUSTIN, Texas (CNN) -- When Emilio Gonzales lies in his mother's arms, sometimes he'll make a facial expression that his mother says is a smile.

But the nurse who's standing right next to her thinks he's grimacing in pain.

Which one it is -- an expression of happiness or of suffering -- is a crucial point in an ethical debate that has pitted the mother of a dying child against a children's hospital, and medical ethicists against each other. (Watch more on the battle over Emilio. Video )

Emilio is 17 months old and has a rare genetic disorder that's ravaging his central nervous system. He cannot see, speak, or eat. A ventilator breathes for him in the Pediatric Intensive Care Unit at Austin Children's Hospital, where he's been since December. Without the ventilator, Emilio would die within hours.

The hospital contends that keeping Emilio alive on a ventilator is painful for the toddler and useless against his illness -- Leigh's disease, a rare degenerative disorder that has no cure.

Under Texas law, Children's has the right to withdraw life support if medical experts deem it medically inappropriate.

Emilio's mother, Catarina Gonzales, on the other hand, is fighting to keep her son on the ventilator, allowing him to die "naturally, the way God intended."

The two sides have been in and out of courts, with the next hearing scheduled for May 8.

The case, and the Texas law, have divided medical ethicists. Art Caplan, an ethicist at the University of Pennsylvania, supports the Texas law giving the hospital the right to make life or death decisions even if the family disagrees. "There are occasions when family members just don't get it right," he said. "No parent should have the right to cause suffering to a kid in a futile situation."

But Dr. Lainie Ross, a pediatrician and medical ethicist at the University of Chicago, says she thinks Emilio's mother, not the doctors, should be able to decide whether Emilio's life is worth living. "Who am I to judge what's a good quality of life?" she said. "If this were my kid, I'd have pulled the ventilator months ago, but this isn't my kid."

The law, signed in 1999 by then-Gov. George W. Bush, gives Texas hospitals the authority to stop treatment if doctors say the treatment is "inappropriate" -- even if the family wants the medical care to continue. The statute was inspired by a growing debate in medical and legal communities over when to declare medical treatment futile.

Dr. Ross says that under the law, some dozen times hospitals have pulled the plug against the family's wishes. She says more often than not, the law is used against poor families. "The law is going to be used more commonly against poor, vulnerable populations. If this family could pay for a nurse to take care of the boy at home, we wouldn't be having this conversation," she said.

Emilio is on Medicaid, which usually doesn't pay for all hospital charges. The hospital's spokesman said that he doesn't know how much it's costing the hospital to keep Emilio alive, but that cost was not a consideration in the hospital's decision.

"[Our medical treatments] are inflicting suffering," said Michael Regier, senior vice president for legal affairs and general counsel for the Seton Family of Hospitals, of which Austin Children's is a member. "We are inflicting harm on this child. And it's harm that is without a corresponding medical benefit."

"It's one thing to harm a child and know this is something I can cure," he added. "But that's not the case here." Regier says Emilio is unaware of his surroundings, and grimaces in pain. He said the ventilator tube down his throat is painful, as is a therapy in which hospital staff beat on his chest to loosen thick secretions.

But Gonzales says her son is on heavy doses of morphine and not in pain. She said her son does react to her. "I put my finger in his hand, and I'm talking to him, and he'll squeeze it," she says. "Then he'll open his eyes and look at me."

Gonzales said she'll continue to fight for treatment for her son. "I love my kid so much, I have to fight for him," she said. "That's your job -- you fight for your son or your daughter. You don't let nobody push you around or make decisions for you."
Emphasis mine.

I find it hard to judge the mother in her irrationality, because it's so very understandable. But the baby's suffering is more important to me at this point. I take the doctor's word over the mother's.

Either way, tragic story for both mother and child :(

edit, true comment:
To be completely fair, she's losing either which way. If she makes the choice to pull the plug, she's effectively killing her own child, and what mother is capable of that? ... What sane mother? This isn't just a simple question of "When does the child get to die?" What person is actually capable of choosing that path and letting their child die? No matter how merciful it may be (and I do think it is), who could make that choice?

Sometimes when you know something horrible is going to happen, and you're just completely powerless, it can be so horrible that there is no possibility of relief when it finally comes to pass. And when one waits, the inevitability of the event on the horizon acts like a lead weight, pulling us down deeper and deeper into incapability.
:sad:
 
Is it just me, or has CNN turned into a tabloid? This issue isn't new at all, and we've always known about it. Life is cruel, but the decision should be the mother's and father's alone. It shouldn't be thrown into a damn battle between 'da religious' peoples versus 'zeh evil atheists' just to get money.
 
I'll liken this to the JW proscription against giving their children blood transfusions. It might not be exactly the same, but it's similar. The courts and the parents are trying to do right by the child; the parents are in a position where they have to fight tooth'n'nail for their child.
 
Emilio's mother, Catarina Gonzales, on the other hand, is fighting to keep her son on the ventilator, allowing him to die "naturally, the way God intended."

it seems to me that the natural way god intended would be to pull the plug :hmm: and let nature let him die.

But as said before, I don't believe a mother can be rational about such a situation, I don't think she's wrong of doing what she does, but imo there's no reason to keep this child alive, as sad as it is.
 
it seems to me that the natural way god intended would be to pull the plug :hmm: and let nature let him die.

I was similarly confused about that line..

And yes I agree with everything you said.. The baby is in pain - the ethical thing would be to pull the plug, no matter what the parents say.
 
It is not just a matter of what it is ethical for the mother to do, but whether any other agent can force that. Maybe she should pull the plug, sure, but does the hospital have the right to force that decision?
 
Whos paying to keep this kid alive?
 
It is not just a matter of what it is ethical for the mother to do, but whether any other agent can force that. Maybe she should pull the plug, sure, but does the hospital have the right to force that decision?

Well, I don't think the hospital should be allowed to inflict pain upon someone, unless it was part of some treatment that eventually lead to that person getting better.
 
I say put him down, he will never live a happy normal life.
 
Bright day
I think that parents should say, but that say should be mitigated by other factors. In this case I think I would support state to cut off its financial support. If the family can gather resources to artificialy prolong the life of the boy, so be it, if not then I am sorry, but this is not what tax money are for.
 
I'm not sure what the debate is all about. Looks like she wants her son to die naturally, the way God intended, then unplug him and let Nature take its course.
 
Bright day
I think that parents should say, but that say should be mitigated by other factors. In this case I think I would support state to cut off its financial support. If the family can gather resources to artificialy prolong the life of the boy, so be it, if not then I am sorry, but this is not what tax money are for.

I agree wholeheartedly. The mother is deluding herself--understandably, but to the detriment of not only her son, but also those paying for his life support.
 
There's not really anything to discuss.

Emilio's mother, Catarina Gonzales, on the other hand, is fighting to keep her son on the ventilator, allowing him to die "naturally, the way God intended."

If this woman wants her son to die "naturally, the way God intended", why is she keeping him alive artificially on a ventilator? You can't have your cake and eat it too, Catarina. If God intended anything, it would be that this child has already died.

No, I'm wrong. There is something to discuss.

Why on earth would this woman want her child kept "alive" in pain when there is absolutely zero chance of his recovery? If what he's got now is the best he's ever going to get, what's the point? I understand that it's not easy to make the choice to pull the plug, but prolonging this kid's suffering is arguably tantamount to child abuse. It's not morally questionable to pull the plug, it's morally wrong not to. How selfish this poor woman is.
 
http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/04/25/baby.emilio/index.html

Emphasis mine.

I find it hard to judge the mother in her irrationality, because it's so very understandable. But the baby's suffering is more important to me at this point. I take the doctor's word over the mother's.

Either way, tragic story for both mother and child :(

edit, true comment:

:sad:

My experience is that families are completely irrational when faced with medical crisis, so it's the duty of the doctor to make choices for them that are in the best interests of the patient.

I find it funny how W signed that law in 1999 yet made a big stink when it was applied in Florida for Schiavo.

Btw, there's no ethical problem. It's just that no one in Texas has balls to do what they know is right.
 
Btw, there's no ethical problem. It's just that no one in Texas has balls to do what they know is right.

Can you realy blame them? As a doctor the malpractice suits would fly from all sides. Your reputation tarnished even if you win out in the end.
 
I say put the child out of it's misery. It's just a waste of money, and the child has no hope for life that isn't filled with torturous misery
 
My experience is that families are completely irrational when faced with medical crisis, so it's the duty of the doctor to make choices for them that are in the best interests of the patient.

That's very true. There is an alarming trend that tends to value emotions as much as rational decisions and experience when facing a difficult crisis.
 
Back
Top Bottom