to me it comes down to viability. not as a moral measure, but certainly as an argument that the child can sustain a life separate from the mother and should therefore be afforded the same human rights as any other individual.
Yes, but Iguess the point of why I meantioned this is this.There's a difference between killing a fetus as it's being born and a baby that is born with a ticking timebomb. If you can't see that I don't know what to tell you. The comparison is ridiculous.
Also, a baby is considered a fetus until it's born. Makes it easier to dehumanize, I guess, for some.
Sycloria watched in horror and shock as her baby writhed with her chest rising and falling as she breathed.
This is great purple prose, and I kind of admire it on that level, but a 23 week baby just does not have the muscle tone to "writhe". And I can't believe that spontaneous breathing went on for five minutes.
We're all writers here, and so should be more savvy of the ways we are manipulated by the media than your average consumer, not less.
That's not a bad test, but with medical advances, it's not inconceivable that someday a fetus at any stage of development could be considered viable, with proper medical intervention.to me it comes down to viability. not as a moral measure, but certainly as an argument that the child can sustain a life separate from the mother and should therefore be afforded the same human rights as any other individual.
It does if you are positing the question from the position that HUMAN life can NEVER be taken. So first you have to define "life," and then you have to go one step further and define "human life" and explain why it differs from any other form of life.
Now I personally agree that questions about "the soul" have no place in legal decision making. But it DOES impact our culture on deep emotional levels, regardless of whether or not it has no place in the realm of law.
In my experience, virtually all parents in this situation, when given all the information, choose not to attempt to resuscitate the infant.
This is not an uncommon ethical problem (although the clinical setting here is strange) -- what to do after the precipitous delivery of what overwhelming statistical evidence shows is an unviable infant. All signs in this case are that the medical care this woman received was atrocious. Proper medical care would have been to discuss the situation with the mother and allow her to choose. In my experience, virtually all parents in this situation, when given all the information, choose not to attempt to resuscitate the infant.
ETA: I very much doubt if anyone there was even aware of how to handle this sort of situation, medically or ethically. Resuscitating an infant like this requires a very high level of training, experience, and skill. I'm certain no one at this office had those skills.
Except that I've never heard of a paramedic rig that carries the equipment or the personnel to attempt something like this. This whole thing is an anecdote (which, after all, is what it is) with highly-charged implications and emotions. But there is a principle in medical ethics that deals with futile care -- physicians are not required to provide futile care, and it is even unethical to do so. What was crucial here would be the mother's wishes -- the medical ethical principle of autonomy. It was unethical not to take that into account.Or the equipment. But they had what they needed, I'm sure: a telephone to call 911 with.
Except that I've never heard of a paramedic rig that carries the equipment or the personnel to attempt something like this. This whole thing is an anecdote (which, after all, is what it is) with highly-charged implications and emotions. But there is a principle in medical ethics that deals with futile care -- physicians are not required to provide futile care, and it is even unethical to do so. What was crucial here would be the mother's wishes -- the medical ethical principle of autonomy. It was unethical not to take that into account.
I agree. It's just that help -- true help -- would be to assess the situation, apply proper principles, and proceed from there. Help is not necessarily attempting to resuscitate the infant.And if they simply threw the baby away, without any attempt, however slim, to help, I'm just disgusted. I'm sorry, but that just really, really bothers me.
I agree. It's just that help -- true help -- would be to assess the situation, apply proper principles, and proceed from there. Help is not necessarily attempting to resuscitate the infant.
Even if the mother had chosen not to resucitate the infant, tossing the kid while still alive into a red plastic biohazard bag and then tossing THAT bag into the trash is unacceptable.
Part of the law concerning abortion includes the fact that it's considered nothing but a medical procedure, not a birth. And so that means that neither a birth certificate nor a death certificate get issued during an abortion.
But that child in that Florida clinic was "born." So a birth certificate should have been issued, medical care should have been admininistered, and then if the mother had chosen not to resucitate, a death certificate should have been issued after the child passed away. And then when that was all done, the correct procedures for handing over the body to the family members with the assistance of a licensed funeral home director should have been followed.
Instead, that kid was just "a clump of cells" tossed into a bio-hazard bag.
Life =/= Soul
True, which I believe means basic medical care (although many dispute this, as you know).superstition aside. if a premature baby is born alive, it has all recourse to the rights of any other person in our society.
But as I noted upthread, babies of this gestation are born in other, more reasonable circumstances, and usually their parents choose not to resuscitate them. So we don't make every effort to keep every live-born infant alive. We can talk about the ethics of this situation in particular (which I agree are shameful) or the general ethical principles, but the fact remains that we do allow 23 week-gestation infants to die, albeit in much more dignified circumstances. This case is dreadful.every effort should have been made to keep it alive.
Should we respect life? Absolutely. But part of that respect for life has to also come down to the quality of life. Not just a heartbeat.