"Do not resuscitate" prem baby

For what it is worth. I've been in the situation of dealing with a DNR. My mom was in the last stages of cancer and she had signed a living will and wanted a DNR IF her quality of life was over. Well in the final stages of cancer it was over. She literally drowned in her own body fluids. The cancer had eaten up her liver and she threw up green bile for about 18 hours, then the cancer was breaking down the tissues in her body and they were going through the catheter in her bladder. She was comatose for two days, had no recognition of anyone, couldn't breathe and if they had drained the fluid, it would have doubled in amount within a few days and she'd have been in worse shape than ever and she would have died anyway in a few days without a miracle from God. And God made it clear He had a purpose other than healing her and letting me keep her. I learned about the goodness of God during those last weeks with her. And I know God was merciful to her by taking her home. So in cases like this, I think a DNR should be respected because God made the decision to take her.

I can't say I'd agree in all cases... if it were my child... don't know. I loved my mom and we were very close... but her illness had been coming on for quite some time... so in the end by the time she died, it was a blessing. If it were an accident and something that suddenly happened, I don't know how I would have felt. I don't know all the details of the above case(s) either. So this is my limited opinion.

Shi

 

If you have been a pastor or in healthcare you see the people who have not dealt with life and death. Death is a part of life. Sometimes the people need to be told to just let the person die. I have seen people have chemotherapy until their body aches and they eventualy die. Sometiems chemo works and oter times it does not. Too often the person's life is just prolonged. My grandfather had cancer and he just slept more and more and eventually died. He never complained about pain. My father in law died of cancer and told me he never had any pain until they started radiation and chemo.

 

This is a prime example of how the media has done a great job of misinforming the public on this case. The doctors she has now are not her original doctors and have given testimony that conflicts with specialists she has seen. There were mysterious circunstance surrounding Terri's collapse and what exactly happened early on in the case. However, Michael Shiavo sued the original doctors and hospital for malpractice and won. In that trial, he claimed that he was commited to helping his wife and looked forward to taking care of her for the rest of her life (expected to be many years). He won a very large settlement that set aside to cover all of her medical expenses for her. When she dies, whatever was left was to go to Michael Shiavo. As soon as this trust fund was finalized, Michael miraculously remembered that she once told him (in passing) a long time ago that she didn't want to be kept alive by any artificial means (i.e., feeding tube), so he turned around and told the current doctors to remove the feeding tube. When Terri's parents heard of this, they fought it and what insued was this big court battle that is still going on. Michael Shiavo has fought all efforts to get any serious long lasting therapy for Terri. He even refuses to let a dental hygenist come in and clean her teeth. Every time Terri's parents have tried to get therapy going that would help her, he stops it. Specialists have examined Terri and said that there was a good possibility some type of better recovery - she might even have regained the ability to speak had therapy been started early on and been kept up. However, Michael Shiavo and his lawyers, Terri's current doctors, and the courts continually ridicule anyone that disagrees with them about Terri being in a persistant vegetative state. Michael Shiavo's lawyers have done a wonderful job of redefining persistant vegetative state (in this case, PVS no longer has the traditional meaning it always had) to include Terri's condition and most people have bought it hook, line, and sinker.


If Terri's feeding tube had been removed years ago, Michael stood to inherit millions of dollars. It also came out years later that he had an adulterous affair and he is now engaged to his lover while still being married to Terri. That means he perjured himself (not only at the medical malpractice trial, but at almost every trial since then) because he testified that he was faithfully devoted to his wife and no one else. Everything he says is suspect. I do not trust anything the Michael or his lawyers say. The courts have constantly sided with Michael, against the wishes of her parents, for whatever reason. That is why we had to get the Florida legislature and the Florida governor involved. It looks like Michael's lawyers and the Florida courts are trying to push through a precedent for euthanasia. Michael's lawyer claim that anyone that cannot lift and eat with a spoon is no longer human and does not deserve to live. He would condemn literally millions of sick and disabled people to death for that fact alone.

 

TC et al, this thread was never intended to focus on the Terri Shiavo case. her case was brought up as an example to the topic, but that's all. Let's save the moderators some aggrivation and not hijack the topic in that direction.

In Baby Charlotte's case, it's been since reported that she's anencephalic. In other words, she has no brain (just a brain stem). Baby Charlotte is, in all aspects clinically dead. There is no reason whatsoever to keep her on artificial life support.

She needs to be taken off life support, and her organs donated (if her parents' religious beliefs allow for organ donation).

 

That is in your opinion. However, it is up to the parents and if they want her kept on life support and can afford it, then no one has a right to tell them differently - not you, not me, and definately not the courts.

 

None of the articles said that. However, no it does not make a difference to me. It should still be the parents choice. Our governments spend billions on technology to kill people (which the taxpayers pay for). It certainly will not hurt either one to fork over a few pounds/dollars in order to keep someone alive for a while. What all articles ignore is the power of God. He could intervene. Even if He does not, it could be His way of getting us to evaluate what is really important and get our priorities in correct order.

 

Our premature baby son was resusitated three times, the fourth attempt failed and he died. All this happened in a period of 2 hours and ten minutes. It was not something I was aware of. Charlottes parents have had her, albeit in hospital for 11 months. I really think that they have done all they can for their daughter. Letting go must be so very hard for them but I hope and pray that they will let their daughter go the next time resusitation is considered as an option.

Sheila

 

following,

I commend you on your courage to both make the decision in your baby's case and also for sharing that with us. You have shown great courage and faith.

azwyld
<*}}}><

 

It is just a few compared to the billions we spend on weapons and the like. We spent million to document and study the mating habits of toads, frogs, ants, et al. - which benefits no human life.

A human life is a human life. God is in complete control of everyone's lifespan. I say do what we can to prolong life. If God decides to end someones life, then resuscitation will fail.

 

I don't think decisions like these should be weighted by who's picking up the bill, imo. That's a separate issue.

 

Lori

re: your post

The decision wasn't ours. Rob had been sent home having been told that nothing was happening, the midwives didn't think I was in labour. When Daniel was born I wasn't told how serious things were. I was only told of his death some 30 minutes + after the event when Rob got back to the hospital. It is only with the passage of time that I am coming to accept what happened. I feel that God is saying to me that if we couldn't have him, then where would I rather he be? I believe Daniel is in heaven. I would hate to think of him suffering here. All I know is that it is so hard to lose a baby no matter what the circumstances. I feel so much for these parents who have bonded with their little daughter. The decision to let her go must be heart-wrenching. Having said that, they at least have seen her and held her. We weren't even allowed that. Thankfully times have changed in that respect.

God Bless


Sheila