To treat or not to treat?

[sparks19]

Ok this is a spin off from nancy's anancephaly thread.

it kinda went off into another direction and I think it is worth discussing but needs it's own thread

So... in this particular case a child is born without a brain.. only a brain stem. One child "lived" 2.5 years with a respiratory device. The debate is whether resources should be used on cases that don't have a chance of living a long life

My opinion is... it's up to the person that is ill or their family/power of attorney.

YES it was guaranteed that this child was going to die eventually as you cannot live without a brain. But who is to say that this child should have been denied the 2.5 years it lived?

I mean I don't want children to suffer so please don't think that I am condoning THAT. I just can't imagine being the parent of a child with such a condition and having to make such a decision... but I think it is their decision to make.

YES the child is going to die... soon. but we ALL die eventually. why is 90 years more important than 2.5 years and of more value? I know it's not really the same thing but how can you say to a parent "Sorry... someone else needs the respirator to keep them alive so we have to take it from your child and let her die sooner than she might have otherwise"

discuss

 

[bubbatd]

It's a good question . I knew a family that had a practically brain dead daughter from birth . At 13 she was still a 6 month old infant and was their loving baby . When she died they grieved as if she was a normal child . I guess we never know unless we've been there . BTW this was caused as she was a teenager and she bound herself so no one knew she was pregnant . Luckily she married the father and had 2 more children ,

 

[Fran101]

I think its more about quality of life...

"A baby born with anencephaly is usually blind and deaf. 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"

so its mostly just..responses. not really actual life or personality from what i read.

"In almost all cases anencephalic infants are not aggressively resuscitated since there is no chance of the infant ever achieving a conscious existence"

Im not saying this baby isn't worth anything. but if this baby is feeling any pain.. i dont think it should be prolonged for the sake of the parents.

these babies often gasp for air, and usually die of cardiorespiratory arrest.

 

[Zoom]

I wouldn't. What is 2.5 years to someone who has absolutely no concept they are alive? The brain stem is where instinct is stored, no higher thinking, no external senses, no voluntary motor functions, very few of the involuntary motor functions, no memories...what are "experiences" when you can't see/hear/remember them?

What kind of quality of life is that?

I hope to God and any other higher power out there that I never have to go through that, but if I did, I'm pretty sure I couldn't live with myself knowing I prolonged the inevitable because *I* was the one who couldn't let go. Nature needs to be able to take it's course on some things.

 

[drmom777]

I am violently against denying most babies treatment. You can never tell which ones are going to do well and which ones are not. However, I feel that the brain is what makes us human. I feel that an anencephalic infant is a collection of organs and not a human, for all practical purposes.

We are not talking about mental retardation here, we are talking about the complete absence of higher order functioning. They even lack the ability to regulate breathing.

Anencephaly is a tragedy. But I feel keeping the infant alive is abusing a finite medical system.

And this is from someone who believes in fighting for the life of the smallest premature infant, even if the chance of success is only ten percent. Some of them do well, if you just let them die, than what about the one in ten that would have made it? But the chances for an anencephalic infant are zero.

The parents belief that it is a sentient being does not make it one.

On the plus side, though, these babies are almost certainly incapable of feeling any pain or discomfort, since they lack the ability to process information.

 

[Fran101]

the baby "functioned" and "survived" for 2.5 years. but i certainly would not say what this child went through was living.

 

[Fran27]

Same as Doc...

 

[drmom777]

Oh, and someone in the other thread asked what caused this condition. It is a neural tube defect and is a variant on spina bifida. It occurs when the neural tube fails to close during development.

 

[bubbatd]

I agree DR.... basically they are vegetables and without a brain feel no pain .

 

[Romy]

Without a brain, is the child really suffering? I am ignorant on a lot of brain stuff. Where are the pain centers located?

Personally, and this is totally personal so nobody needs to agree with me, I still feel that they are human and deserve the rights of any other human even if they lack the higher brain function of an intact human being. I still feel that they have a human spirit, and their life is as sacred as any other human.

I believe that everybody is born for a purpose. Sometimes that purpose isn't to learn something themselves, but to teach others. Teach them lessons about compassion and humanity.

If it was my child I would carry to term. In my religion, we believe that families exist as an eternal unit. My husband, children, and I are sealed together for time and eternity. Even if my child was born with no brain and died hours later, their spirit would remain a part of our family and we would meet them again when the time came to pass on ourselves. And they would be whole. This, being a religious belief isn't shared by many, but I do feel strongly that it is a decision to be made by the parents.

I also feel that denoting encephalic babies "sack of organ" status is treading a dangerous slope. At what point would that extend to other humans whose brain activity has ceased? What if new treatments for encephalopathy emerge using stem cell technology? Or other new technologies?

 

[iwantmypup]

Agree with Dr too.

 

[GipsyQueen]

Without a brain, is the child really suffering? I am ignorant on a lot of brain stuff. Where are the pain centers located?

Personally, and this is totally personal so nobody needs to agree with me, I still feel that they are human and deserve the rights of any other human even if they lack the higher brain function of an intact human being. I still feel that they have a human spirit, and their life is as sacred as any other human.

I believe that everybody is born for a purpose. Sometimes that purpose isn't to learn something themselves, but to teach others. Teach them lessons about compassion and humanity.

If it was my child I would carry to term. In my religion, we believe that families exist as an eternal unit. My husband, children, and I are sealed together for time and eternity. Even if my child was born with no brain and died hours later, their spirit would remain a part of our family and we would meet them again when the time came to pass on ourselves. And they would be whole. This, being a religious belief isn't shared by many, but I do feel strongly that it is a decision to be made by the parents.

I also feel that denoting encephalic babies "sack of organ" status is treading a dangerous slope. At what point would that extend to other humans whose brain activity has ceased? What if new treatments for encephalopathy emerge using stem cell technology? Or other new technologies?

Good Post!

I agree with Romy.

I believe that even if the infant is 'only a sack of organs', it is still someone to their parents and family. To them this is still a child, their child, and not a just a 'sack of organs' and it diserves all the love and care it can get for its short life.

 

[sparks19]

I'm totally with Romy on this one.

It's a little too early in the morning for me to say anything that would really make sense at this point lol...

but if it's just about quality of life... does that mean everyone who has no chance of surviving something just be left to die? I mean ZERO chance. like the car accident victim who is essentially only being kept alive by machines.... should we just say no and take those devices away because they aren't going to live anyway? Should the family be denied access to the machines that are keeping this person "alive" I mean they aren't REALLY alive right? their brain can no longer perform even the instinctive duties like breathing and such. So should ALL people who have ZERO chance of living not be allowed to be put on these machines?

Should the families get no choice in it at all?

I mean... sure keeping these people alive is more for selfish reasons... it's hard to let go. especially to let go of your baby. but should that be taken away? should the decision be made FOR them? I don't think it should be.

 

[jess2416]

Nature needs to be able to take it's course on some things.

Ditto ^^ and to the people that dont let that happen are SELFISH... yes I said it they are SELFISH....

(I just didnt wanna say it on Nancy's thread)

 

[puppydog]

It is up to the parents. I would abort. If that makes me selfish, then so what? Does me going to term with a baby that has no brain affect anyone but me and my loved one? Nope. So I would be "selfish" and abort.

 

[jess2416]

It is up to the parents. I would abort. If that makes me selfish, then so what? Does me going to term with a baby that has no brain affect anyone but me and my loved one? Nope. So I would be "selfish" and abort.

so??

I never said aborting would be selfish...I think NOT aborting in that case is selfish

I think that the people that knew about it, and still carried it to term and allowed it to be born and suffer are selfish...

 

[puppydog]

so??

I never said aborting would be selfish...I think NOT aborting in that case is selfish

I think that the people that knew about it, and still carried it to term and allowed it to be born and suffer are selfish...

Oh sorry! I totally misunderstood you! I thought you were saying not aborting is selfish, we are on the same page.

 

[jess2416]

Oh sorry! I totally misunderstood you! I thought you were saying not aborting is selfish, we are on the same page.

lol its ok I was like "what is she talking about? I think we agreed about it, but Im not sure" of course its 6am something here and Ive had no sleep and then I re-read what I wrote and tried to fix it in my reply to you lol

 

[Dizzy]

Who are you keeping the child alive for if it has no concept of being?

 

[happyhound]

There is no treatment for not having a brain. It is merely sustaining a very basic form of life by keeping it on a respirator. Although I'd opt not to give birth to a child like that, I can understand why a grieving parent would.

And, IMO, there is a huge difference between wanting to keep someone alive who could function before an accident vs. an infant who could never function in the first place.