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
"Do not resuscitate" prem baby
Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by Matt Black, Oct 8, 2004.
Page 2 of 2
-
-
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.
-
Matt Black Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
The situation here is slightly different from those outlined above in two main ways:-
1. Firstly, Charlotte is an infant, and therefore unable to make her wishes known in advance of her treatment eg: by a 'living Will'. Therefore someone has to make that decision for her
2. The question then arises: is that the parents, the doctors or the courts? It's all very well saying 'let the parents decide', but they aren't the ones treating her or even paying for the treatment; ultimately, they can't force the doctors to do it if they don't want to. It was only fear of prosecution that kept the doctors resuscitating her in the past and ultimately that fear meant that the case had to be decided by the courts.
Two other additional aspects which have subsequently emerged:-
1. Charlotte in anencephalic, which mean part of her brain is missing, so she will definitely die in a matter of months, if not weeks; this is therefore not a case like PVS or spina bifida where a miraculous recovery may occur (unless the Lord works a really supernatural miracle and gives her the missing parts of her brain - but, without at all wishing to be blasphemous, He has had 11 months plus the 9 in the womb)
2. Charlotte's parents being described as 'committed Christians' is something of a theological license - they're Catholics who haven't been to Mass in years apparently. The judge, however, definitely is a Christian
Yours in Christ
Matt -
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). -
Matt Black Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
Thanks, John; I really don't want a rehash of the Terry Shiavo arguments.
Although Charlotte is anencephalic, only part of her brain is missing - she's not brain-dead, but it does mean she will die soon in any event
Yours in Christ
Matt -
-
Matt Black Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
TC, it's the taxpayer who's paying for the life support, not the parents. Does that make a difference to you?
Yours in Christ
Matt -
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 -
Matt Black Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
TC, as I said earlier, He's had 11 months post-birth plus the 9 in utero. And it's not just a few pounds either - these kind of life support units cost thousands of pounds a week to run when you add the costs of the equipment, medical personnel etc.
Would your answer be any different if it was a rebellious teenager who'd come off his motorbike and was on life support?
Yours in Christ
Matt -
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
<*}}}>< -
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. -
-
Matt Black Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
But it is a question of allocating scarce resources within the NHS - it can either pay for someone to have an urgent life-saving operation to remove a cancerous growth, OR keep Charlotte alive indefinitely - but not both.
NB: I don't want a discussion here on the merits or demerits of gvt-funded healthcare - start another thread on that if you want - but that is one of the issues over here
Yours in Christ
Matt -
Lori
re: your post
God Bless
Sheila -
Matt Black Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
An update on Charlotte in our local rag can be found here:-
http://www.portsmouthtoday.co.uk/ViewArticle2.aspx?SectionID=455&ArticleID=868667
Doctors at the same hospital face possible prosecution over a treatment decision they made some years ago re a 12-year old boy, which is why they felt they had to take the case re Charlotte to the High Court
Yours in Christ
Matt
Page 2 of 2