Friday, October 21, 2005
Breathe again - Toni Braxton
Ruling lifted on baby Charlotte
The parents of a brain-damaged baby have won a partial victory in their legal battle to have her resuscitated by doctors if she falls seriously ill.
A judge has lifted the order not to ventilate Charlotte Wyatt,...
You can read the article in its entirety here.
Perhaps, for some background, permit to just to quickly update the uninformed - one year ago, the same Judge ordered that Charlotte should not be ressusitated by the doctors if such treatmetn was required to keep her alive. "I am quite clear that it would not be in Charlotte's best interests to die in the course of futile aggressive treatment."
It may be easier to understand the Judge's ruling then when "...doctors said Charlotte has 'no feelings other than continuing pain'..." and the court had heard how experts believed her life was "intolerable".
One year after that, and Charlotte had "beaten a 5% chance of survival". More than that, the doctors now report that she "feels pleasure" and "has a tolerable quality of life now". (see links to the article above for a detailed account)
I am glad to read that piece of news today. The rights of children are something close to my heart. In fact, when I signed up for the course I'm doing, one of the options that I had oredi decided on taking way back last year was the subject of International Child Rights.
I just had my first seminar on that subject today (incidentally, I have classes from Monday afternoon all the way til lunch on Wednesday. I was hoping that Child Rights - which is only going for 2 hours a week - would be scheduled on Tuesday evening or Wednesday morning/evening so that I can have a 4 day weekend!!! No such "luck". Child Rights is on Friday. But I would not be disuaded from doing it!)
Article 6 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child provides as follows:-
1. State Parties recognise that every child has the inherent right to life.
2. State Parties shall ensure to the maximun extent possible the survical and development of the child.
I guess that in this case, it is made easier for everyone to learn that Charlotte is no longer in constant intolerable pain.
The question is, what if she is?
I tried to deal a little on this issue in one of my older blogs (you can read it here).
The pro-life voice in me would say that no matter wat, she still deserves to live. The paternalistic instinct in me cries at the thought of the poor defenseless little baby whose very existense in this cruel world brings her unimaginable pain 24-7.
I may be considered as a pro-life person - but I must say now that my views are beginning to.. well, not change, but move ever so slightly. I feel that that at the end of the day, "pro-lifers" should never forget why they argue for life. Sometimes, I feel that some hav forgotten and are just arguing for life purely for the reason that they are pro-lifers.
I do not have the answers. I'm just glad that when the time comes, the doctors would not have any legal restriction to help Charlotte breathe again.
The parents of a brain-damaged baby have won a partial victory in their legal battle to have her resuscitated by doctors if she falls seriously ill.
A judge has lifted the order not to ventilate Charlotte Wyatt,...
You can read the article in its entirety here.
Perhaps, for some background, permit to just to quickly update the uninformed - one year ago, the same Judge ordered that Charlotte should not be ressusitated by the doctors if such treatmetn was required to keep her alive. "I am quite clear that it would not be in Charlotte's best interests to die in the course of futile aggressive treatment."
It may be easier to understand the Judge's ruling then when "...doctors said Charlotte has 'no feelings other than continuing pain'..." and the court had heard how experts believed her life was "intolerable".
One year after that, and Charlotte had "beaten a 5% chance of survival". More than that, the doctors now report that she "feels pleasure" and "has a tolerable quality of life now". (see links to the article above for a detailed account)
I am glad to read that piece of news today. The rights of children are something close to my heart. In fact, when I signed up for the course I'm doing, one of the options that I had oredi decided on taking way back last year was the subject of International Child Rights.
I just had my first seminar on that subject today (incidentally, I have classes from Monday afternoon all the way til lunch on Wednesday. I was hoping that Child Rights - which is only going for 2 hours a week - would be scheduled on Tuesday evening or Wednesday morning/evening so that I can have a 4 day weekend!!! No such "luck". Child Rights is on Friday. But I would not be disuaded from doing it!)
Article 6 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child provides as follows:-
1. State Parties recognise that every child has the inherent right to life.
2. State Parties shall ensure to the maximun extent possible the survical and development of the child.
I guess that in this case, it is made easier for everyone to learn that Charlotte is no longer in constant intolerable pain.
The question is, what if she is?
I tried to deal a little on this issue in one of my older blogs (you can read it here).
The pro-life voice in me would say that no matter wat, she still deserves to live. The paternalistic instinct in me cries at the thought of the poor defenseless little baby whose very existense in this cruel world brings her unimaginable pain 24-7.
I may be considered as a pro-life person - but I must say now that my views are beginning to.. well, not change, but move ever so slightly. I feel that that at the end of the day, "pro-lifers" should never forget why they argue for life. Sometimes, I feel that some hav forgotten and are just arguing for life purely for the reason that they are pro-lifers.
I do not have the answers. I'm just glad that when the time comes, the doctors would not have any legal restriction to help Charlotte breathe again.
# posted by imissw : 7:17:00 pm
