They Watched Their Child Starve to Death. For Compassion.

robjvargas

Rob J. Vargas
Banned
Joined
Dec 9, 2011
Messages
6,543
Reaction score
511
19 month old Natalie Newton drowned in her family's backyard pool. There's whole conversations to be had about that.

But the story actually gets worse.

Natty — as the family called her– was eventually revived. But, their busy, happy girl, was already gone.

“It was just horrible. Blind and deaf and can’t move… can you imagine?” Newton, Natalie’s grandfather, wipes away tears as he talks about the heartbreaking decision that would soon follow. After more than an hour without oxygen, doctors at a hospital near the family’s Corpus Christi home determined that Natalie would ultimately not survive.

The family, left with this little shell of a body, conferred with doctors. And that's where the awful part comes in.

“They’re saying, ‘ok, well, the nutrition and the hydration’… and I ask them, ‘well, isn’t that starving her to death?’”

In a word: yes. ‘Withholding nutrition’ as it is nicely put– is the only end of life option that Texas Law allows.

I had to set the story aside for a moment at that point.

“We euthanize dogs for humanity reasons. We euthanize serial killers, because that’s more humane. But, a 21-month old baby has to starve for almost 9 days in front of her family?”

They stayed with the little girl through the whole thing. Hat over heart for that. But I don't even know what to say about this that the grandfather hasn't already said.

I don't know what would happen to me, having to watch my son go through that. No way I'd walk away from him. But I can't imagine the agony they must have felt, knowing what it was doing to the girl's body. How do watch that, even knowing the little girl was already effectively dead?

I don't give a damn about criticizing Texas. The law needs to change.
 

cornflake

practical experience, FTW
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 11, 2012
Messages
16,171
Reaction score
3,734
Is there ANY state in the U.S. that allows for actively euthanizing children?

What're there, two that allow for assisted suicide? You want the country to get from there to euthanasia? Not happening dude.

I don't actually think there's any country that does that. The Dutch had a big brouhaha over allowing teens choice.

I just checked. Last month Belgium became the first country in the world to allow it, after a highly controversial, obviously, yet again, brouhaha.
 
Last edited:

benbradley

It's a doggy dog world
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Dec 5, 2006
Messages
20,322
Reaction score
3,513
Location
Transcending Canines
I don't see this as the result of what "The Law" allows, but surely the result of a combination of laws that say what can't be done, which left "witholding nutrition" as the only thing that COULD legally be done to end the life.

This quote stood out for me:
"We euthanize serial killers, because that’s more humane. "
No, we EXECUTE (some) serial killers because "society" (or some people in it) wants revenge.
 

Friendly Frog

Snarkenfaugister
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 23, 2011
Messages
4,098
Reaction score
4,942
Location
Belgium
I just checked. Last month Belgium became the first country in the world to allow it, after a highly controversial, obviously, yet again, brouhaha.

Although I think I remember (haven't checked the particulars of the law) that here, in Belgium, euthanasia for children is allowed only when the child is suffering unbearingly and is considered capable of making the choice. If Natalie was still breathing on her own, she would not have had a much kinder fate even here, I fear.
 
Last edited:

Shadow Dragon

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 7, 2008
Messages
4,773
Reaction score
261
Location
In the land of dragons
Unfortunately the second human euthanasia is brought up in the US, the rhetoric jumps to death death panels deciding to kill off anyone that's old or disabled.
 

robjvargas

Rob J. Vargas
Banned
Joined
Dec 9, 2011
Messages
6,543
Reaction score
511
Unfortunately the second human euthanasia is brought up in the US, the rhetoric jumps to death death panels deciding to kill off anyone that's old or disabled.

The line is very blurry sometimes. How do we protect the ill and infirm against that kind of pressure? How does someone decide when quality of drops too low? I think there are valid concerns about how and where to draw that line.

But this case is well beyond that. One way or another, the girl's body was dying.
 

Hapax Legomenon

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 28, 2007
Messages
22,289
Reaction score
1,491
People keep saying that euthanasia would cause death panels and people being pressured to die but the thing is that at least in the US I have not seen any arguments for euthanasia that do not involve people who are not already in a persistive vegetative state or comatose.
 

Hapax Legomenon

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 28, 2007
Messages
22,289
Reaction score
1,491
and we know about these 'states' what, exactly?

What I mean is that it's a strange argument to think that we would suddenly start offing our old and disabled if we make it okay to euthanize people in persistive vegetative states or comatose states. There's still plenty of argument about what we do and don't know about these states to have, and whether it is humane to euthanize people in either of them, but it's not as quick of a jump as people think to get to offing our medically expensive.
 
Last edited:

Monkey

Is me.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 12, 2007
Messages
9,119
Reaction score
1,881
Location
Texas, usually
It's true: if we let a pet suffer and die the way we make some humans suffer and die, it would be called inhumane and we could be prosecuted.

My father begged for death while he was terminally ill, but instead, we had to watch him suffer day after day. If it had been a dog, and we'd been caught letting him get to the point where he was only skin hanging off bone, not capable of even standing, screaming in pain almost constantly, we'd be called monsters. But because it was my father, we'd be called monsters if we'd honored his request to let him die with dignity and save him all that.

Our laws need to reflect the harsh reality that death can be a mercy for the terminally ill. I understand that they don't, and I understand why, but I don't care. This needs to happen.
 

William Haskins

poet
Kind Benefactor
Absolute Sage
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
29,097
Reaction score
8,847
Age
58
Website
www.poisonpen.net
it's the abortion debate turned inside out, but with the same players in large part.

mainstream acceptance will likely be a pipe-dream for generations, but lawmakers need to show the progressive courage to make it legally allowed now.
 

robjvargas

Rob J. Vargas
Banned
Joined
Dec 9, 2011
Messages
6,543
Reaction score
511
can you quote the illinois law on this for us, so we know how a civilized state handles this?

If, as I said, I don't give a damn about criticizing a state, what led you to believe I wanted to compare it, either?
 

William Haskins

poet
Kind Benefactor
Absolute Sage
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
29,097
Reaction score
8,847
Age
58
Website
www.poisonpen.net
ah. i see what happened.

you wrote:

"I don't give a damn about criticizing Texas. The law needs to change."

you meant:

"this isn't about blaming a particular state. the law needs to change."

it came off (to me) as:

"if someone has a problem with me criticizing texas, i don't give a damn."

so, i mistook it, or
you phrased it poorly, or
both.

doesn't matter, i suppose, now that you've clarified intent.
 

Synonym

Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 12, 2009
Messages
24,038
Reaction score
4,491
Location
Kansahoma
When my grandmother suffered a massive stroke, we had a couple of choices. (While she could still breathe on her own, there was very little brain activity.)

They could have fed her intravenously and prolonged the inevitable, or stop. Or, in other words, let nature take it's course.

No one had to actively 'cause' that death, in a sense. (Which could be quite a burden to the psyche of the person that actually had to administer the drugs to do so.) In my grandmother's case, and the child's, the real suffering was for the family. We've seen numerous examples of families fighting to 'pull the plug', or not, over the years to know that there is no easy answer.

I suppose the question is whether you can build enough safeguards into the procedure that there will be no chance of lawsuits, and that there is acceptance, and no overwhelming guilt on the part of the person that has to actively cause the death. Do we need to create a specialty in the health care system for this? Will they become pariahs?
 

juniper

Always curious.
Requiescat In Pace
Registered
Joined
Mar 1, 2010
Messages
4,129
Reaction score
675
Location
Forever on the island
Our laws need to reflect the harsh reality that death can be a mercy for the terminally ill. I understand that they don't, and I understand why, but I don't care. This needs to happen.

I have a friend in northern California whose father developed ALS (Lou Gehrig's Disease). It's a horrible, wasting disease that ends badly, over the course of a few years. No cure.

He lived in southern Oregon. When I heard about his diagnosis, I was glad he lived in Oregon, as he could avoid the last several months of misery, if he chose. Our law in Oregon gives terminally ill people the right to assisted suicide, guided by a family physician.

But - he chose to move to California and finish his life there instead. I understand why at some level - wanted to be closer to his family on a daily basis - and maybe he didn't want that right to end his life earlier. Not everyone does. In 2012, 77 people used it.
 

DancingMaenid

New kid...seven years ago!
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
5,058
Reaction score
460
Location
United States
I feel like in the case of brain dead patients, this is largely a matter of semantics. Whether a patient is euthanized or taken off life support, the end result is the same. The latter just draws it out more, which can be more painful for the families.

I can understand some of the concerns about assisted suicide. I'm in favor of allowing euthanasia, but obviously there are concerns about informed consent, and it's important to ensure that a patient requesting euthanasia is capable of making that choice. The decision to seek euthanasia, or even decline treatment, is even more complicated when the patient is a child.

But a brain dead or vegetative patient doesn't have any control over their fate, unless they signed an advance directive. And they have no awareness anymore. If a patient's family can elect to take them off life support, I don't see why electing for euthanasia is any different.
 

cornflake

practical experience, FTW
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 11, 2012
Messages
16,171
Reaction score
3,734
I feel like in the case of brain dead patients, this is largely a matter of semantics. Whether a patient is euthanized or taken off life support, the end result is the same. The latter just draws it out more, which can be more painful for the families.

I can understand some of the concerns about assisted suicide. I'm in favor of allowing euthanasia, but obviously there are concerns about informed consent, and it's important to ensure that a patient requesting euthanasia is capable of making that choice. The decision to seek euthanasia, or even decline treatment, is even more complicated when the patient is a child.

But a brain dead or vegetative patient doesn't have any control over their fate, unless they signed an advance directive. And they have no awareness anymore. If a patient's family can elect to take them off life support, I don't see why electing for euthanasia is any different.

There's a huge gulf between brain dead and vegetative. Taking a brain dead patient off life support is what it is. There's arguably not possibility of euthanasia in that sort of case. You can't kill what's dead.

Vegetative states are an entirely different matter.

As the poster from Belguim has helpfully qualified their law - there is no country on the planet that allows for what rob is suggesting the state do in this case. I don't see how it's a problem with the individual state, or any, if, thus far, no legislative body the planet over has been ok with it.
 

Don

All Living is Local
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 28, 2008
Messages
24,567
Reaction score
4,007
Location
Agorism FTW!
I don't see this as the result of what "The Law" allows, but surely the result of a combination of laws that say what can't be done, which left "witholding nutrition" as the only thing that COULD legally be done to end the life.
This. Another case where nobody but those directly involved and their doctor should have any say in the situation, particularly not politicians or clergymen. As William pointed out, it's the abortion debate restated.
 

Devil Ledbetter

Come on you stranger, you legend,
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 8, 2007
Messages
9,767
Reaction score
3,936
Location
you martyr and shine.
But in any case, for the family's sake it would have been more compassionate to allow euthanasia than to wait around 9 days watching her body waste from starvation.