Worth reading.. don't forget to read Islam's POV on Euthanasia from the link i provide at the end of the page.
____________________________________
Court decision on baby's life sparks off fierce ethical debate
LONDON LOG with CHOI TUCK WO
It seems that playing God is not as easy as it appeared nowadays, with modern science verses moral ethics. When a judge ruled that an ailing baby be allowed to die, effectively signing her death warrant, it sparked a fierce ethical debate.
Agony
At the heart of the controversy was 11-month-old Charlotte Wyatt, born three months premature, weighing just 500g (1lb) and merely 13cm (five inches), small enough to fit into her mother’s palm. Born at St Mary’s Hospital in Portsmouth, the toddler cannot see or hear, has severe brain, lungs and kidney damage and has “no feelings other than continual pain”.
Following a week-long heart-breaking legal battle, Charlotte’s parents, Darren, 33, and Debbie, 23, made an impassioned plea to prolong her life despite the doctors’ advice. However, Justice Sir Mark Hedley ruled that the baby should be allowed to die the next time she stopped breathing.
The judge, however, noted that the child must be given “tender loving care” and be allowed to slip away peacefully in the arms of her parents. Rightly or wrongly, the court decision had touched a raw nerve in a series of so-called “right to live” cases that had come before the court.
Charlotte, who clings to life in a special hospital oxygen box, is not expected to live beyond this year – possibly succumbing to a respiratory infection this winter. Divided views Even as the baby’s parents brace themselves for her inevitable death – she had been saved three times before, by being put on a ventilator – an ethical debate is raging over the controversial judgment.
Child experts and the British press appeared deeply divided over the issue, with some criticising the ruling and others supporting it. Some people sympathised with the judge’s decision, however heartbreaking it may seem, as they felt it was in the best interest of the baby. Medical Ethics Alliance chairman Dr Anthony Cole said he did not believe that life must be preserved at all costs. “There are times when it is appropriate to stop treatment,” he added.
Leading medical ethics expert Baroness Warnock noted that it was right to listen to the experts rather than the people who were so emotionally involved. Others, however, felt that the judge was wrong, saying doctors should not make assumptions about the quality of life of disabled children. “We must never lose sight of the fact that it is society’s obligation that all of its offsprings should be nurtured, regardless of their vulnerability,” said Prof Margaret Brazier, chairman of a working group studying the problems of prolonging life in foetuses and newborn babies.
Even the press seemed split over the issue with The Times believing that the judgment was wrong. The Daily Telegraph observed the decision would be seen to have established the principle in English law that “some lives were worth saving and others were not”.
The Guardian, on the other hand, felt there would be few neutral observers who would disagree with the court’s ruling. Both the Daily Mirror and Daily Mail noted that the judge had made the right decision.
Miracles Needless to say, the parents’ moral right to keep their baby alive – yes, they do believe in miracles – should be fully respected.
More so, for the mother who had carried the baby for several months and had gone through pregnancy blues as well as established a bond with her child despite her traumatic state.
For the parents, they have endured untold sufferings to see their baby in constant pain yet they could not have the final say in determining her destiny.
On the other hand, the judge must have good reason to come to the heartbreaking decision – to let her go and end her sufferings once and for all. Prolonging her life may mean extending her sufferings, which is just as painful for the child as it is for her parents.
Of course, it’s easier said than done, considering we’re not the baby’s parents. Our heart goes to the couple who deserved the highest praise for their strength in accepting the decision. _____________________________________________
Sad..... what does Islam says on this..?.. I recalled a discussion with a good friend of ours, ex-imam of Belfast Islamic Centre on the issue..Islam's view on Euthanasia.. read here.
____________________________________
Court decision on baby's life sparks off fierce ethical debate
LONDON LOG with CHOI TUCK WO
It seems that playing God is not as easy as it appeared nowadays, with modern science verses moral ethics. When a judge ruled that an ailing baby be allowed to die, effectively signing her death warrant, it sparked a fierce ethical debate.
Agony
At the heart of the controversy was 11-month-old Charlotte Wyatt, born three months premature, weighing just 500g (1lb) and merely 13cm (five inches), small enough to fit into her mother’s palm. Born at St Mary’s Hospital in Portsmouth, the toddler cannot see or hear, has severe brain, lungs and kidney damage and has “no feelings other than continual pain”.
Following a week-long heart-breaking legal battle, Charlotte’s parents, Darren, 33, and Debbie, 23, made an impassioned plea to prolong her life despite the doctors’ advice. However, Justice Sir Mark Hedley ruled that the baby should be allowed to die the next time she stopped breathing.
The judge, however, noted that the child must be given “tender loving care” and be allowed to slip away peacefully in the arms of her parents. Rightly or wrongly, the court decision had touched a raw nerve in a series of so-called “right to live” cases that had come before the court.
Charlotte, who clings to life in a special hospital oxygen box, is not expected to live beyond this year – possibly succumbing to a respiratory infection this winter. Divided views Even as the baby’s parents brace themselves for her inevitable death – she had been saved three times before, by being put on a ventilator – an ethical debate is raging over the controversial judgment.
Child experts and the British press appeared deeply divided over the issue, with some criticising the ruling and others supporting it. Some people sympathised with the judge’s decision, however heartbreaking it may seem, as they felt it was in the best interest of the baby. Medical Ethics Alliance chairman Dr Anthony Cole said he did not believe that life must be preserved at all costs. “There are times when it is appropriate to stop treatment,” he added.
Leading medical ethics expert Baroness Warnock noted that it was right to listen to the experts rather than the people who were so emotionally involved. Others, however, felt that the judge was wrong, saying doctors should not make assumptions about the quality of life of disabled children. “We must never lose sight of the fact that it is society’s obligation that all of its offsprings should be nurtured, regardless of their vulnerability,” said Prof Margaret Brazier, chairman of a working group studying the problems of prolonging life in foetuses and newborn babies.
Even the press seemed split over the issue with The Times believing that the judgment was wrong. The Daily Telegraph observed the decision would be seen to have established the principle in English law that “some lives were worth saving and others were not”.
The Guardian, on the other hand, felt there would be few neutral observers who would disagree with the court’s ruling. Both the Daily Mirror and Daily Mail noted that the judge had made the right decision.
Miracles Needless to say, the parents’ moral right to keep their baby alive – yes, they do believe in miracles – should be fully respected.
More so, for the mother who had carried the baby for several months and had gone through pregnancy blues as well as established a bond with her child despite her traumatic state.
For the parents, they have endured untold sufferings to see their baby in constant pain yet they could not have the final say in determining her destiny.
On the other hand, the judge must have good reason to come to the heartbreaking decision – to let her go and end her sufferings once and for all. Prolonging her life may mean extending her sufferings, which is just as painful for the child as it is for her parents.
Of course, it’s easier said than done, considering we’re not the baby’s parents. Our heart goes to the couple who deserved the highest praise for their strength in accepting the decision. _____________________________________________
Sad..... what does Islam says on this..?.. I recalled a discussion with a good friend of ours, ex-imam of Belfast Islamic Centre on the issue..Islam's view on Euthanasia.. read here.
