Do Doctors Play God?

by Cassiline 15 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Cassiline

  I just read an article about a baby born at prematurely at 26 weeks and the doctor who tried to save him. The question was asked, should this baby be saved?

  The child was born at 26 weeks, (14 weeks early) with one kidney missing, a partial esophagus, no anus, tracheal hole, malformed, exposed spinal cord, multiple abnormalities of the heart. Swelling of the brain which required 2 spinal taps a day to assure brain damage would not occur or assure brain damage would not worsen. He was hooked up to a respirator in order to breathe, and several other devices to assure he would survive.

  When the doctor suggested a shunt be inserted into the babys brain the parents refused seeing their babys future as bleak. (the parents did allow some surgeries to assure the babys survival) Most likely would never be able to walk, mass surgeries to assure he would be able to eat and have a beating heart. Suffer from brain damage, quite likely not be able to see if he did indeed survive just being born at such a premature age and a host of other problems.

  The doctor convened a committee to have his wishes bestowed the 26 week old baby. The hospital committee had to determine if this baby could survive and if the parents were making the wrong decision for their son.

  Would you as the parent of that child have made the same decision?

  If you had, would you expect to have a doctor tell you that you may not make that decision and do what he pleased?

  Do you believe doctors experiment in order to play god?
• 

  Yizuman

  Yes many do.

  My mother was a victim of one. The doctor "questioned" my mother's age and questioned whether she was valuable enough to adminster blood to save my mother's life. They seemed to think that the blood transfusion would be a waste of material on account of my mother's age. (She was 67)

  She died from a cardiac arrest.

  A friend who researched this problem with doctors and found that they are 500 times more dangerous than a handgun.

  Too many idiot doctors are out there misdynosing(s?) patients or adminstering wrong medications.

  My friend's father-in-law died on the operating table because they administered the wrong medication on him. He had a natural low blood pressure, so before they could perform his heart operation, they needed to raise his BP first. Well, they administered the wrong medication that lowered his BP even more, causing him to have a heart attack and body functions to shut down, i.e. kidney, etc. The last shutdown was his brain. The family lost a very good man in his 50s.

  I know tons more medical nightmare stories, but I'll leave this one at that.

  Yizuman

  Edited by - Yizuman on 10 January 2003 18:21:47
• 

  crownboy

  Do Doctors Play God?

  My answer to that would be a resounding "no". Maybe there are one or two odd ball doctors out there who seek to "experiment" on people or what not, but the vast majority of them are simply trying to do what's best for their patients.

  If the insertion of the shunt gives the child a better chance of living a normal life than if the doctor did not insert it, then I have to agree with the doctor 100%. It would be like if a parent elected not to give their child a surgery that would restore hearing, or something. If the parents of that child want to give up so quickly, that's fine, but the kid should not have to potentially suffer for it.

  I'm sure the medical board will only overturn the parents wishes if their non-compliance with the doctor's medical reccomendation will or could very likely cause harm to the baby (you did not make this point very clear. Is there a link to this story somewhere?), so I don't think the parent's rights will be violated (same as a JW parent with a blood transfusion). However, overall I hate the term "playing God", because I don't think science and religion should have anything to do with each other. When folks oppose science for purely religious reasons, and say the "offending" party is doing the job of God, it's pretty silly, since the god should have been doing the job in the first place .
• 

  auntiem

  It is a hard question to answer. I have never been in that type of a situation where the infant had so many disabilitys. I guess I would probabley see how strong the infant was. Babies who have a lot of things wrong with them sometimes have a great will to live despite the disabilities. Some babies are not fighters and give up on their own. Its so hard to say because there are so many variables to consider as well. I think I would do what I could to help my child to live, but if the baby became too weak, or did not respond to what may be considered appropriate treatment I then would have to say goodbye and let my baby die with the dignity and respect it deserves. If the doctor wanted to do some type of treatment that I did not think was appropriate, and the doctor decided to get a court order against me, then I would be prepared to take my infant out of the hospital and flee.

  My son was born with a blood disorder and began to die hours after he was born. He was a fighter tho and pulled through. It took three weeks of hospitilaization in the NEO NATAL unit before he was out of the woods. At the time I was a big time B'org babe and didn't want him to have a transfusion. I was prepared to flee with my son when the doctor said she would give him one more day to get better and if he did not improve she was on her way to get a court order. Well, he did get better, thanks to a med wise nurse who suggested a medication that she had seen used by other physicans in pediatric situations such as this. So I kinda have been in a simular situation where the life of my child was involved. When I made plans to flee I had made arrangements with a pediatrition of Childrens Hospital of Portland where treatment of this type of disorder is almost a common occurance and they are more prepared to deal with it without the blood issue. I think what parents decide to do for their children in desperate situations is a very personal one....after all no matter the outcome for the child the parents have the rest of their life to live with that decison.

  Hugs,

  aUnTiE M
• 

  Cassiline

  I'm sure the medical board will only overturn the parents wishes if their non-compliance with the doctor's medical reccomendation will or could very likely cause harm to the baby (you did not make this point very clear.

  You are quite correct I did not, apologies, as it seems the last paragraph of my post was lost when I pasted from word.

  The hospital board went along with the parents decision to not have the shunt implanted. The parents also decided to remove him from life support and this was granted when baby Jorge was 23 days old. The article can be found in its entirety in Readers Digest, January 2003 edition.

  This was stated of the doctor who wanted to keep the infant living:

  "Rusty Jennings is a formidable surgeon. I've seen him save kids I never thought would live. But he has a difficult time with kids dying. He never wants to let go." ~~ Connie Clauson, NICU Children's Hospital

  She stated this of the parents:

  "The strength to make a decision like that--- the most loving, unselfish, decision a parent could make for a child"~~ Connie Clauson, NICU Children's Hospital
• 

  Scully

  It pains me a great deal to read stories like the one at the top of the thread. Because when all is said and done, yes, the doctor did save a life - but at what cost?? to the baby who will live a life as a permanently severely disabled person?? to the parents who will have the burden of caring for and raising a permanently severely disabled person?? to society, who will bear the burden of caring for and maintaining a permanently severely disabled person once their primary caregivers are no longer capable of providing that care?? to the siblings of the permanently severely disabled person who will not have the kind of attention they need from their parents??

  Quality of life is subjective - I'll be the first person to admit that - but what kind of "quality of life" is a child so severely disabled going to have?? What kind of "quality of life" will the family have in caring for this child??

  My personal feelings are: if the family realizes the magnitude of the task of caring for this child, and honestly does not feel that they will be able to meet that challenge, then the doctor - no matter how skilled he or she may be in being able to perform medical procedures that will permit survival - does not have the right to impose that burden on a family. If the doctor is not prepared to take that severely physically, mentally, emotionally and permanently challenged child home with them and raise the child themselves, they have no business expecting anyone else to do it either.

  If the family wants to go ahead with it, fine. As long as they understand exactly what they are getting into.

  It really bothers me that if an animal was that severely disabled we would consider it "humane" to euthanize it. But when it's a human, it's considered "cruel" to deny them an opportunity at life - any kind of life - at any cost.

  Love, Scully
• 

  Cassiline

  I, of course have never been in this situation, one reason why I hate to pass judgment but I have to agree with you Scully. If he did indeed survive what quality of life would he be afforded?

  Then I think why should I assume that he would not accept his quality of life and who am I to wonder if he should?
• 

  SixofNine

  How does God play? Nice? Takes his toys and goes home?

  Comparing what doctors, politicians, engineers, just-about-anybody-but-hookers, do, with god, is an exercise in silliness. I'm not saying that the efforts to make extremely premature babies live outside the womb is not worthy of critical discussion; it is. I am saying it has nada to do with God in any form that he/she/it has revealed his/her/it'self.
• 

  teenyuck

  I am with Scully and you Cassi.

  The analogy with pets is interesting. Makes you wonder why people will go to any length to keep a very sick pet alive. The treatments available to family pets rivals humans.

  Humans need to learn to let go and let life end when the body of the loved one is irrepairable..just because it can be fixed (to keep the body alive) does not mean it should. When someone is in a coma for years and has no brain activity, let them go. Accept that the body gave out (for what ever reason) and move on with your life. I would not want to be a vegetable. If my brain stops due to injury or illness, let my body go.
• 

  donkey

  Interesting story Cassi.

  In reading it I recalled the Carl Sagan essay on abortion. In that he quoted one of the old arguments "we become human when we are able to survive outside the womb". So since medical technology can enable babies to live outside the womb sooner (eg premies) has medicine changed the point at which a fetus becomes a human?

  Carl saw this clearly...it is a pity pro-lifers have their religious blinders on and cannot deal with reality.

  Jack