# Should the parents of a baby born without a brain be allowed to extend its life?



## noscreenname (Feb 24, 2013)

(Warning do not google or wiki any of the terms or definitions being posted if you have a sensitive nature even looking up the articles which I am not linking to from mainstream media are hard to look at) 

(Anencephaly is a cephalic disorder... resulting in the absence of a major portion of the brain, skull, and scalp. 

A baby born with anencephaly is usually blind, deaf, unconscious, and unable to feel pain. Although some individuals with anencephaly may be born with a main brain stem, the lack of a functioning cerebrum permanently rules out the possibility of ever gaining consciousness. Reflex actions such as breathing and responses to sound or touch may occur.)

No this isn't a joke. Nickolas Coke was born without a brain and his parents went against all accepted medical advice and insisted that he live. While not hooked up to any machines as his brain stem was functioning he was on a feeding tube.

"Because he lacked a brain, Nickolas could not speak, walk, or eat. He often had seizures. But his family regarded him as a treasure. “He taught us everything, he taught the love, how to be family. He taught us everything,” his grandmother told local media."

One of the longest lived anencephalic babies, he lived for 3 years. If the operations the parents wanted went through and allowed him to live he would have at best been nothing more than a vegetable for the rest of his life. 

So should people have the right to extend their babies lives beyond the hope of accepted medical opinion just because there might some day be a cure (not likely) or just because their beliefs say all life is sacred? 

"Doctors opinion: 'Some say withdrawing medically provided hydration and nutrition is akin to withdrawing any other form of life support. Maybe, but that is not how it feels. In action, it seems like withdrawing a ventilator from a patient in an atmosphere of 0% oxygen.'"

Is it child abuse or the ultimate act of compassion and belief?


----------



## T-Bone (Oct 1, 2010)

Absolutely not. The amount of greed a person would have to possess in order to do that is sickening. The sad thing is they're too blind see that their "love" for that child is nothing more than selfishness.


----------



## Lasair (Jan 25, 2010)

Personally I would have to let the child go.


----------



## arnie (Jan 24, 2012)

noscreenname said:


> "Doctors opinion: 'Some say withdrawing medically provided hydration and nutrition is akin to withdrawing any other form of life support. Maybe, but that is not how it feels. In action, it seems like withdrawing a ventilator from a patient in an atmosphere of 0% oxygen.'"


This form of euthanasia bothers me. When doctors decide it's no longer worth keeping someone alive, they can't just kill them. They subject them to a long slow painful death by withdrawing the feeding tube so the patient starves to death or withdraw medical treatment so they patient will die in some other horrendous matter. Why not just kill them quickly? Why do doctors make them suffer?

They are essentially making the patient suffer to aide their own peace of mind. People have cognitive dissonance where they don't want to kill someone (euthanasia) but they don't want them to live on in this bad way anymore so they choose the worst possible option to let them die slowly and absolve themselves of responsibility. Is it really worth making someone suffer to death, just so we can feel better about ourselves?


----------



## noscreenname (Feb 24, 2013)

arnie said:


> This form of euthanasia bothers me. When doctors decide it's no longer worth keeping someone alive, they can't just kill them. They subject them to a long slow painful death by withdrawing the feeding tube so the patient starves to death or withdraw medical treatment so they patient will die in some other horrendous matter. Why not just kill them quickly? Why do doctors make them suffer?
> 
> They are essentially making the patient suffer to aide their own peace of mind. People have cognitive dissonance where they don't want to kill someone (euthanasia) but they don't want them to live on in this bad way anymore so they choose the worst possible option to let them die slowly and absolve themselves of responsibility. Is it really worth making someone suffer to death, just so they can gain a little peace of mind?


It's not the doctors fault blame the anti-death, anti-euthanasia laws that the U.S. has. And really it is technically just natural causes.


----------



## panopticon (Nov 14, 2010)

How is it abusive? If the child doesn't have a brain surely it can't feel pain.


----------



## Meli24R (Dec 9, 2008)

I'd have to question the sanity of a person who'd want to keep a child with that condition alive. Reminds me of that Terri Schiavo case. I never understood all the outrage over the decision to end life support and allow nature to take its course. I doubt that poor woman would've wanted to end up like that. 
I also feel it's a huge waste of resources to keep a brain dead person alive.


----------



## whattothink (Jun 2, 2005)

I'm amazed that I'm the only person who voted yes. While I certainly would not choose to extend my child's life if they were afflicted, I certainly don't believe parents should be _denied the right_ to allow their child to live. But with the loaded way you phrased the options, I guess I'm not that surprised.


----------



## komorikun (Jan 11, 2009)

No, let it die. I think they should have let this little girl die too. Way too many health problems.


----------



## Diacetylmorphine (Mar 9, 2011)

^ whats wrong with her aside from the obvious facial deformities?

IRT: Seems pointless, it's basically a vegetable.


----------



## komorikun (Jan 11, 2009)

Disarray said:


> ^ whats wrong with her aside from the obvious facial deformities?
> 
> IRT: Seems pointless, it's basically a vegetable.


She has had numerous surgeries (27) and will have more. She can't speak. She can't breathe through her mouth or nose, so she has a tracheotomy. She has to have a night nurse to make sure she doesn't take out her trach. Then the night nurse has to do all these things to her; ointment and saran wrap on the eyes. She's just a huge mess.


----------



## Zeppelin (Jan 23, 2012)

No. If it was my kid, I would let it die, but I would allow his/her organs to be donated. 

Being born without a brain is like being brain dead. It isn't alive. The baby is a vegetable. I wouldn't want to live if I was a vegetable. Better to have the organs donated. That's what I would do.


----------



## fanatic203 (Jun 23, 2010)

I wouldn't extend its life personally, but I think others should be allowed to if they want.


----------



## Noca (Jun 24, 2005)

SomebodyWakeME said:


> Absolutely not. The amount of greed a person would have to possess in order to do that is sickening. The sad thing is they're too blind see that their "love" for that child is nothing more than selfishness.


Selflessness like that is very common. Just think of all the mothers who are denied their ability to abort a child with severe life limiting illnesses because the religious right only care about saving babies, and they don't give a rats *** about the quality of life that child is going to have. But I agree, it is sickening. It is just like those who push legislature that deny an adult in extreme suffering the right to end their own life. Absolute selfishness. I think the problem here is the lack of people's ability to empathize.


----------



## hoddesdon (Jul 28, 2011)

arnie said:


> This form of euthanasia bothers me. When doctors decide it's no longer worth keeping someone alive, they can't just kill them. They subject them to a long slow painful death by withdrawing the feeding tube so the patient starves to death or withdraw medical treatment so they patient will die in some other horrendous matter. Why not just kill them quickly? Why do doctors make them suffer?
> 
> They are essentially making the patient suffer to aide their own peace of mind. People have cognitive dissonance where they don't want to kill someone (euthanasia) but they don't want them to live on in this bad way anymore so they choose the worst possible option to let them die slowly and absolve themselves of responsibility. Is it really worth making someone suffer to death, just so we can feel better about ourselves?


Actually, I completely agree with you. Euthanasia, giving treatments supposedly for valid reasons but knowing full well (if not expecting) that it may kill the patient, playing word-games to say that withdrawing treatment is not euthanasia, much less claiming that euthanasia is in some way different from murder, are all practising and\or condoning murder.


----------



## hoddesdon (Jul 28, 2011)

Noca said:


> Selflessness like that is very common. Just think of all the mothers who are denied their ability to abort a child with severe life limiting illnesses because the religious right only care about saving babies, and they don't give a rats *** about the quality of life that child is going to have. But I agree, it is sickening. It is just like those who push legislature that deny an adult in extreme suffering the right to end their own life. Absolute selfishness. I think the problem here is the lack of people's ability to empathize.


So not wanting someone to have an illness is empathetic, so, to demonstrate how empathetic you are, you murder them (??????)


----------



## komorikun (Jan 11, 2009)

I think in the US for the most part passive euthanasia is legal but active is not.



> Passive euthanasia entails the withholding of common treatments, such as antibiotics, necessary for the continuance of life.[1] Active euthanasia entails the use of lethal substances or forces, such as administering a lethal injection, to kill and is the most controversial means. A number of authors consider these terms to be misleading and unhelpful.


----------



## TobeyJuarez (May 16, 2012)

every once in a while i run across a thread that i have no idea how to respond to.... this is one of those threads


----------



## KelsKels (Oct 4, 2011)

No. The less hardcore conservatives, the better. (hurrhurr)

But seriously, its unbelievably selfish to let a "person" live that way for that long when its obvious their quality of "life" is so poor.


----------



## T-Bone (Oct 1, 2010)

hoddesdon said:


> So not wanting someone to have an illness is empathetic, so, to demonstrate how empathetic you are, you murder them (??????)


Being born with little to no brain is not an "illness". You might as well just hook some feeding/breathing tubes up to a t-bone steak and tell everyone how much you "love" it.


----------



## hoddesdon (Jul 28, 2011)

SomebodyWakeME said:


> Being born with little to no brain is not an "illness". You might as well just hook some feeding/breathing tubes up to a t-bone steak and tell everyone how much you "love" it.


The post I was quoting (http://www.socialanxietysupport.com...y-born-without-a-brain-331041/#post1062365633) used the word "illness". It was referring to illnesses in general, not just this particular case.


----------



## T-Bone (Oct 1, 2010)

hoddesdon said:


> The post I was quoting (http://www.socialanxietysupport.com...y-born-without-a-brain-331041/#post1062365633) used the word "illness". It was referring to illnesses in general, not just this particular case.


Well you still voted yes to this poll for some odd reason, so my comment is still fitting i guess.


----------



## hoddesdon (Jul 28, 2011)

^ actually, I had not voted, but I have now.


----------



## Chieve (Oct 9, 2012)

although i understand the parents may want to keep the baby and all....its not like the baby is happy or really living its life. its just...nothing really, its a vegetable, it cant do anything. that sucks. all it really is are parents who made a connection with a baby for 9months and instead of just trying again, wanted to cherish the baby and accept it for any medical problem it has....and that is a nice way of going at it, its not really worth it for them or the baby....idk how to explain it...it seems like the parents just dont want to let go even though its really wrong and sad


----------



## diamondheart89 (Mar 21, 2011)

arnie said:


> This form of euthanasia bothers me. When doctors decide it's no longer worth keeping someone alive, they can't just kill them. They subject them to a long slow painful death by withdrawing the feeding tube so the patient starves to death or withdraw medical treatment so they patient will die in some other horrendous matter. Why not just kill them quickly? Why do doctors make them suffer?
> 
> They are essentially making the patient suffer to aide their own peace of mind. People have cognitive dissonance where they don't want to kill someone (euthanasia) but they don't want them to live on in this bad way anymore so they choose the worst possible option to let them die slowly and absolve themselves of responsibility. Is it really worth making someone suffer to death, just so we can feel better about ourselves?


Physician assisted suicide/euthanasia is illegal. It shouldn't be.


----------



## panopticon (Nov 14, 2010)

What is selfish is to want to forcibly euthanise a child, who is incapable of self-awareness or pain, because its condition makes you uncomfortable.


----------



## Monotony (Mar 11, 2012)

komorikun said:


> She has had numerous surgeries (27) and will have more. She can't speak. She can't breathe through her mouth or nose, so she has a tracheotomy. She has to have a night nurse to make sure she doesn't take out her trach. Then the night nurse has to do all these things to her; ointment and saran wrap on the eyes. She's just a huge mess.


Wow those parents are despicable.


----------



## Zeppelin (Jan 23, 2012)

arnie said:


> This form of euthanasia bothers me. When doctors decide it's no longer worth keeping someone alive, they can't just kill them. They subject them to a long slow painful death by withdrawing the feeding tube so the patient starves to death or withdraw medical treatment so they patient will die in some other horrendous matter. Why not just kill them quickly? Why do doctors make them suffer?
> 
> They are essentially making the patient suffer to aide their own peace of mind. People have cognitive dissonance where they don't want to kill someone (euthanasia) but they don't want them to live on in this bad way anymore so they choose the worst possible option to let them die slowly and absolve themselves of responsibility. Is it really worth making someone suffer to death, just so we can feel better about ourselves?


I agree. But the I don't think the doctors can legally just kill them. I've watched close family members/ relatives die of cancer, and it got to the point were there mind was pretty much dead, but they could still breath/ have a heartbeat. I wish they could of just used assisted suicde on them, but they couldn't because that process takes a really time to get approved. It is legal in my state, but when one of my parents died of cancer, they couldn't do it because of laws.

I think most doctors agree with assisted suicde, it's just that they legally can't.


----------



## diamondheart89 (Mar 21, 2011)

panopticon said:


> What is selfish is to want to forcibly euthanise a child, who is incapable of self-awareness or pain, because its condition makes you uncomfortable.


No, its situation doesn't make me uncomfortable, it makes NO SENSE. You're artificially extending the function of a body that has no future or present. For no reason. Those resources could be used to help someone who actually has a chance. This is despicable.


----------



## PickleNose (Jul 11, 2009)

noscreenname said:


> Is it child abuse or the ultimate act of compassion and belief?


 From where do I derive the superiority that gives me the authority to say yes or no?


----------



## AmandaMarie87 (Apr 24, 2013)

Extremely selfish parents. Why would they want their child to suffer like that? I hope they at least donated their son's organs so that other kids who are actually able to function have a chance.


----------



## millenniumman75 (Feb 4, 2005)

I think they can put a computer in the brain.

ROBOBABY!


----------

