There is a sad little drama playing itself out in the children’s hospital in London, Ontario. A 13th month old baby, with a fatal degenerative neurological condition, is dying. There is no way to prevent that. The doctors at the hospital want to remove his breathing tube, and an Ontario Superior Court judge has ruled in favour of this course of action. The baby would then die. The family, who, we are told, are praying for a miracle, want the doctors to perform a tracheotomy so that he can be transferred home to die. This the doctors have refused to do. The hospital is now rejecting charges that the hosptial might “kill” Baby Joseph as “outrageous and defamatory.”
When I was growing up in India, school holidays were in the winter, when the mountains where the school was situated were covered with snow. In my teen years my father worked in a small city in Madhya Pradesh (Central India) named Ratlam, on the main railway line from Bombay to Delhi. Just over the fence from the “Mission Compound” was a tree under which the leather workers used to skin the cows that died of natural causes. Since they were sacred to the Hindus, they could not be simply killed, but once they were dead, their skin could be used for leather. On the tree the vultures used to gather, waiting for the carcass that would be left. It was a gory business, watching animals being skinned, and then watching the vultures devouring them, fighting with each other for tastier bits, yet fascinating too.
And now the religious vultures are gathering around the Baby Joseph, just like the vultures used to gather at that charnel house beneath the vulture tree. Christians, like vultures, scrap over the little bits of publicity they can gain for their fanatical drive to hold all life sacred, stirred up by their exorbitant claims about the value of human life, and how it should be honoured, no matter what its quality, no matter how much suffering. The Terry Schiavo Life and Hope Network and Priests for Life are at the centre of the media circus. Alex Schadenburg, of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, a Roman Catholic group in London Ontario that interferes with people’s decisions across Canada, and occasionally elsewhere in the world, has joined in the fracas, trumpeting his usual take on issues of life and death, that this concerns us all. There will even be protests and prayer vigils at the hospital this weekend.
I want to write more comprehensively about this in a later post, and this post is only to bring it to your attention. Perhaps what is most notable about this case is that (i) a jet is standing by waiting to take Baby Joseph to the US for treatment; (ii) there is a “Save Baby Joseph” campaign to raise money for … well, what, exactly?; and (iii) a prominent Christian lawyer from the US has taken over Baby Joseph’s case.
Baby Joseph is not going to survive. Prolonging his life will only cause more suffering to a sensitive being who is not able to understand what is happening to him, but who can, nevertheless, suffer. People like Alex Schadenburg, who are still fulminating about pulling the plug on Terry Schiavo, and consider it an act of murder, are playing up this story for all it is worth. Stories like this are like gold to them. They can bring their concerns to millions, while so many die in misery alone. “A warning to us all. Who will be next?” they cry in frenzied tones. Somewhere along the line someone has forgotten that this is supposed to be about compassion, not a bitter struggle for life regardless of the cost in human suffering. Every breath that Baby Joseph takes, we are told, is of infinite value. Is it really so important to keep this baby alive just so that he can suffer more? Hasn’t someone lost the thread of the human story? I’ll come back to this in a later post.
Can the child’s pain be managed? If so, why not let him die with his family at home?
In the great cause of choice in dying, I think we still need to give deference to families, especially of children, so long as they are not going against the known wishes of the dying person. This being a child too young to express own preference, one should look at the minimum common denominator of whether keeping alive has become a form of torture. If that’s not the case, why force a particular end-of-life progression on the family?
Of course, this becomes a much messier case where some talk of taking the child to the states for further care. If only one could be confident that no U.S. doctor would put the poor kid through useless treatments.
There are probably a lot of other considerations here, and I am waiting to find out about it. The question that this raises for me is whether, if it is appropriate to allow a child to die, as, it seems, there is no choice in this case, it would not be appropriate to ease the child out of life. What is suffering for? Why must a child continue to suffer if there is no option but to let it die?
But all this depends on the child’s condition, whether he can be made comfortable, what alternatives are available, etc. Clearly, the experts at the children’s hospital feel that it would be inappropriate to give the child a tracheotomy, and, depending on the condition of this baby, it may be that the parents would be unable to give him the care necessary to provide the least suffering as he dies.
For me the issue here is difficult precisely because it is not a matter of personal choice in the case of babies, and the question is: what do we do, when choice is not possible, or no longer possible? This was resolved in the Netherlands by the Groningen Protocol, which is an addition to the euthanasia provisions of Dutch law, which is based on choice. I just find the gathering together of all these religious hysterics repugnant.
My immediate reaction was very similar. I am somewhat confused by the article, as the family’s wish to have their baby die at home seems to be orthogonal to the question of whether the baby should be allowed to die peacefully rather than prolonging life as long as possible. Perhaps the relation is just not clearly spelled out in the article.
All other things being equal, it would seem to me to be the most compassionate course of action to allow the family to let this important life event take place at home rather than in the sterile and uncomfortable environment of a hospital. But as Eric says, clearly there is more information needed to really say anything about this.
Regardless of the dispute between the family and the hospital, where we don’t have enough information to really say much, Eric’s primary purpose of this post, to expose the “vultures” who would exploit this tragedy for their sick political ends — can’t disagree with that. What a bunch of dicks.
Shades of the Schaivo circus indeed! The “vultures” (and I think you’ve got that exactly right) are in this for the publicity. I first heard about these protests on the 7am news, and had one of those half-awake “Is this real or am I dreaming?” moments. Since the kid’s going to die soon anyway, it’s just bizarre to have these people trying to cast this as a pro-life issue. They’re trying to balance a large issue of ethics on a very narrow example, and something stinks.
That being said: all else being equal, if it was me I would want my child to die at home — I just hate hospitals. But knowing nothing of the circumstances (and indeed, probably cannot, given medical privacy concerns), I have to assume that all else is not equal.
I wonder what a Christian’s response to an animal in agony would be? I pose the dilemma or thought experiment that the animal is in continuous agony and chronic pain, no treatment will stop the pain, unless the animal becomes unconscious.
Would a Christian destroy the animal to end its suffering? Or put it into a permanent unconscious coma? Or would a Christian simple sit and watch the animal suffer in agony, knowing that they are obeying their perfect moral duty?
Of course animals don’t have souls (neither do human animals) but would that make a difference? Does it depend on which particular church you get your morals from?
I would be fascinated by the responses, and whether they contradict the notion that life must be preserved as an absolute.
I have to say that, were I the parents, I’d want to see that my child died as quickly and with as little pain as possible. But to take the child home, and keep it alive as long as possible: this makes no sense to me.
I don’t think that asking for medical treatment so that their child can be at home when death approaches is very unreasonable. I think it’s very compassionate to do this, provided any additional pain and suffering is minimal. What’s the standard? Can the doctors do this, legally, once they’ve decided there is no hope?
Can’t the family request the baby to be brought home to die without the procedure? I think that’s the best solution if that’s the family’s true intentions and if it’s medically possible. But it sounds like they simply want another chance at life for their precious child.
“We hope to bring Joseph home and give him a chance, like any human being, to fight for his life and to die with the love of his family around him,” Moe Maraachli said Monday.
Clearly, we don’t know enough, and presumably, the parents have been told why this is not an option. However, as I say, we should suspend judgement about such things until we do know enough. My main point has been the way that the religious gangs have got involved in this. And don’t tell me they’re concerned about the parents. They’re involved because the choice has been made by those in the know — and they have convinced a superior court judge of this too — that the best thing for this baby would be to let him die. There is really no point in speculating, because we simply do not know.
Can there be any clearer example of why we think Christianity is a death cult?
I agree on repugnance of the religious meddlers.
The Groningen Protocol requires the consent, even the initiative of the parents. But it also seems to be for active euthanasia.
What’s hard in this case is that it’s not euthanasia, but withdrawal of care in a hopeless case where the child cannot breathe on his own. It’s a terrible shame that the hospital and parents couldn’t find a middle ground before starting a political sideshow.
Thanks for applying reason to these heartbreaking cases. In better world, you’d be in there helping counsel patients and families, instead of the ghouls.
A couple of things need to be clarified here. These parents had a child a few years ago with the same condition, which is a relentlessly progressive brain degeneration with no hope of effective treatment, let alone cure. The babe has been in a vegetative state in hospital since late October 2010, and without an endotracheal tube or a tracheostomy, would perish quickly. Either of these measures are difficult to manage in a 13 month old even in a pediatric IVU. Particularly the trach is prone to mucus plugs, it irritates the throat, causing bouts of coughing and choking, needs frequent suctioning. True, the family could engage full-time nursing staff, but even they are not likely to do very well in these circumstances. The hospital would come under severe criticism for this course of action, as it falls well below any standard of care, and would be vulnerable to legal action should the child succumb to a vicious bout of coughing and choking. It is a no-win situation for the hospital and a no-lose situation for the ghouls and
(dropped post!) … vultures who have gathered around. There have been threats against the hospital staff, and vitriol spewed at the physicians involved. Marvellous!!!
Pingback: How many young men go off to war? « Choice in Dying
Thank you, Loren, for the additional information. It is clear, then, on the basis of what you say, that the option for the baby to be taken home is not open, and that the hospital is doing the best for the infant that can be done in the circumstances. What is so terrible about this situation is that people are ghoulishly revelling in this solely for the sake of getting their warped and distorted beliefs out there in the public where they can do the most damage. It is so annoying with this kind of cruel emotionalism is the dominant message, instead of quiet reasonableness, which would be best for everyone concerned at the centre of this. All these vulturous hangers on are doing nothing but serving their own egos. It really is quite sickening. I remember when I came back from Switzerland — nearly four years ago now — and Schadenburg and his gang got to work trying their best to raise the social temperature. They didn’t really succeed in that case, but they seem to have got some traction in this one. What a pitiful display of inhumanity!
Pingback: Suicide, Murder, And An End Of Suffering | Meddling Kids
The vultures have landed, or at least one vulture: Fr. Frank Pavone.
The Priests for Life website http://www.priestsforlife.org/ announces.
“Fr. Pavone Leads Covert Mission to Rescue Baby Joseph”
First, we know it wasn’t a “covert mission.” According to an article in the Globe and Mail online, “The London hospital responded promptly to the family’s discharge request.”
Pavone has a blog: http://www.priestsforlife.org/blog/index.php?p=3499
My comment will not praise Pavone or his actions.
Pingback: The Ghouls for Life Gather…. « Choice in Dying
Thank you for the reference to the Globe and Mail, Veronica, as well as for your comment over at Fr. Pavone’s blog. What a devious, underhanded, dishonest way of presenting this story. Not unexpected, but still pretty reprehensible.
Follow-up
It seens my comments on Fr. Pavone’s blog , my email messages or both have made me a Priests for Life “Friend of Life.” I received an email message today from Fr. Frank Pavone. It is a very long appeal so I won’t bore you with all of it:
———
“June 14, 2011
Dear Friend of Life,
(Thank you for your support of Priests for Life. If you already responded to the following appeal online, I appreciate your support. This email is intended for those who did not respond when we sent it last week.)
America has reached a crossroads. And because it has …
… it’s important that you click here and make a special 2-Month “Summer Pledge” that will empower Priests for Life to win more of your fellow Americans over to the side of LIFE.
I say “more” of your fellow Americans because, thanks to you and loyal supporters like you, Priests for Life is effectively changing people’s attitudes on abortion. All the polls show this. And this shift, which began to show itself a couple years ago, continues to this day.”
——–
Of course I never sent Priests for Life any money. Receiving email appeals like this is a minor cost of protesting the deviousness of organizations like Priests for Life.
That’s humorous (sort of). It’s not the first time (just this week!) I’ve heard of a critic of some religious lobby group getting their contact info mined for the beg-letter list. Don’t these people even check to see whether the person is a supporter?
Thank you for the update, Veronica. One thing this so clearly shows is that it’s all done by computer! It’s as personal as the thank you sign at the parking garage when you put in you computer stamped ticket!
But it is very troubling, if true, to hear that people’s attitude towards abortion is changing. That means that, some day in the future, women in the US will be held prisoner to their bodies, without the option, and as in some South American countries, if in desperation they should try to obtain one, they will be treated like criminals and locked away for years. These guys are worse than vultures. They prey on the living!
Pingback: The Cost of Protest