Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Single Moms Single Moms

Disabled & alive or better off dead *POLL ADDED*

Posted by   + Show Post

 

Poll

Question: Could you do it?

Options:

Yes

No

Undecided


Only group members can vote in this poll.

Total Votes: 898

View Results

So I'm just now watching an episode of Dr. Phil I dvr'd last week and it's about a woman who has 2 children. Both of who were born "normal" ( or whatever society deems normal) At the ages of 7 and 8 they were diagnosed with a disabling condition (forgot the name) and now 17 years later they are both confined to wheelchairs, do not speak and have feeding tubes.

The mother wants to be able to legally euthanize both of her children by lethal injection to put them out of thier misery. The only way she could "kill" them legally is to pull out the feeding tubes causing then to starve to death. She says that if she had never gotten the feeding tubes for them they would have died already. The siblings have no sense of feelings so there's no way to tell if they are in pain.

Could you do it? Could you kill your child/ren to put them out of thier misery? Knowing that when you're gone your child/ren will be cared for by strangers? What do you think?

Personally, I'm conflicted. Idk how I would handle it if I were in the situation.  I mean on the one hand you don't know if they are suffering because they have no way of telling you but at the same time since God is the only one who can give and take life, should you be allowed to take it? 


Created by MyFitnessPal - Free Calorie Counter


by on Apr. 22, 2012 at 9:29 PM
Replies (31-40):
new2this09
by on Apr. 23, 2012 at 12:33 PM
1 mom liked this

I think it would be selfish to keep them alive, suffering, just because *you* as the parent want them to survive. I think a responsible parent would choose the least amount of suffering for their child, regardless of any selfishness or fear of stigmas.

mik1of3
by on Apr. 23, 2012 at 12:48 PM
4 moms liked this


Quoting 5BMom:

I saw that episode. The feeding tubes should never have gone in to begin with....not when their outcome is 100% predictable. Now this mom who chose this life for them only sees them once every few months... I honestly don't think I could euthanize my children buf I damned well no I would not have taken life saving measures to begin with.

This.   It would be hard either way....but I think infinitely more humane to have not taken any life saving measures to begin with.  I wouldn't have taken any steps to keep them alive.  It's selfish, and 'playing God' to do so.

People referring to it as 'putting down a dog'...frankly, I think putting a dog to sleep when it has cancer, or is so riddled with senioritis--blindness, deafness, inability to hold pee or poo, paralysis--is much more kinder and humane that just letting it suffer. I think its abomindable to alllow our pets a more humane, dignified, and gracious exit to the next life...but we as humans don't get the same. 
Maybe our pets deserve an easier and more proud exit than we humans do. 

I've always said it was all about money.  The medical community wants to keep people alive as long as they possibly can...and not because they want us to live, because 'life is precious'....it's because they want that money.   And as long as we're breathing--doesn't matter if our brain is dead, if 'elvis has left the building' or not...as long as we're breathing and our hearts are beating...those $$$$$ just keep adding up.  From our survivors, insurance, and Uncle Sam.

IQuitCounting
by on Apr. 23, 2012 at 12:51 PM
5 moms liked this

Using the God argument in a case like this is ridiculous.  The feeding tubes and life prolonging agents are all MAN instigated.  If they would have naturally died years ago if it weren't for man's intervention, isn't that what "God" would have wanted?  As you may have sensed I don't follow any conventional idea of "God" and the hypocrisy bothers me.  I'm all for using our brains and the tech we have, but there's no room for God in that argument for me.

I don't know if I could do it, but I know that I can't say I wouldn't.  Life is about living, it's about experience and QUALITY, not quantity.  I've seen too many people I love lose quality of life because of medical conditions... I can't judge her for this.  The only thing I can say is that if it were to cause her to be jailed and takes her away from any other children that may rely on her, then she has to put those other children first and not compromise her ability to parent them.

Connie04
by on Apr. 23, 2012 at 12:53 PM

I have watched a couple of shows about his woman's situation.  I feel very conflicted.  I can understand how she feels and that she is watching her children basically "existing", not living.  But, could I go so far as to have the feeding tubes removed and let them starve to death?  I don't know if I could do it.  If they were lying in bed in a vegetative state, no response, etc. etc....maybe.  But, they are able to respond, but are they aware of what is going on around them?  What truly is their quality of life?  I pray I am never in that situation and I feel great empathy for that mother.  I would not want to be faced with such a hellish choice.

LucyHarper
by on Apr. 23, 2012 at 12:53 PM
2 moms liked this

No, there is no way of telling if those kids want to be alive or not and I don't think that decision should be made for them. I would do my best to make their lives are enjoyable as possible and allow them to live. They may not be able to show it, but for all we know they are completely concious in their bodies and want to continue to live.

aeneva
by on Apr. 23, 2012 at 12:54 PM
1 mom liked this

While I don't know what I would do if it were my children I did have to go through this with my father.  He was in an industrial accident that left him a vegetable.  The only thing he had was a feeding tube and when that was put in we did nto know the outcome yet since his brain swelling was still too much to tell what would happen when it went down.  Well he lived for almost 2 years and we have no idea if he could hear, see or anything even though his eyes were open.  There was no response to us or anything.  My mother and I spent every night after school/work at the nursing home that was now his home for at least a couple hours, but my sister could not bring her self to see him like that.  He ended up dying of an infection since our state did not allow us to remove the feeding tube.

 

No one can know what they would do in that situation, but myself I would likely have not put the feeding tubes in to begin with after having gone through what I did.  I hope I never have to make that decision and I feel for this woman.  Until you have been there and done that you cannot say how you would react and cannot judge this woman at all.

MommyNyx
by on Apr. 23, 2012 at 12:54 PM
1 mom liked this

Unfortunately, this goes back to the whole Kevorkian debate. Under the hippocratic oath, they promise not to  intentionally take a life. However, they also promise to preserve the quality of a life. This may sound heartless, but if your child can't understand what is happening to them and is basically a vegetable, what is the point in keeping them alive in that state? It's the same argument with several coma patients and elderly patients. 

The biggest issue with this is that there is a fine line between euthanasia and murder. I think over all it's up to the family of those people. If it were my kids, I think that certain qualifications would have to be met first, and that we as a family would all have to be in agreeance. 

toddler girlblowing bubbleslistening to tunesteen girlbaseball

There's not enough coffee in the world to gain as much energy as these 5!


PortiaRose
by on Apr. 23, 2012 at 12:56 PM
Yes. Absolutely... I have a low tolerance for my childs suffering.
Posted on CafeMom Mobile
Rose87
by on Apr. 23, 2012 at 1:07 PM
2 moms liked this

My husband and I were discussing this last night. He is torn on the subject and said he does not want to think about it whereas I feel that it is not a quality life. If the person is only alive due to medical machinary, they deserve to live out the rest of their days, medical intervention free, and be with God. I want this for myself. I just pray my husband would actually do it and not go against my wishes.

Quoting Jenn8604:

if my child is going to die unless hooked up to machines I would just let him die. i could never stand to see my very wild hyper son who should be out playing in a bed w machines making his body stay alive. Hed deserve to be free. Hed be free if pain and in Heaven where id see him again. Id let him go and not put him on machines and if the Good Lord decided to preform a miracle and give him back to me then so be it. but i would never hook my son to machines ever. so id never have to pull a plug.


mlg1989
by on Apr. 23, 2012 at 1:08 PM
2 moms liked this
Quoting Mommyto2LilMen:


if my dad wasn't able to live without machines you bet ur butt I'd pull the plug. What kind of life is that?! If he were dead then he'd be in the glory of our Lord with no pain or problems. My dad also said to me to do that if it happened-im the eldest- he said he wants to join my mother in Heaven, who am i to deny him that?
Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)