State compels parents to pull plug on terminally ill baby

[Corduroy]

Joseph Maraachli, one year old (pictured above with his father Moe Maraachli), suffers from a degenerative neurological condition which has left him in a vegetative state and in need of a respirator. Neither his doctors nor his family believe he has much chance of living. But when doctors ordered Joseph's breathing tube removed, his family refused and attempted to appeal the decision.

Thursday, an Ontario Superior Court judge dismissed the appeal effectively giving state sanction to the negligent homicide of Joseph Maraachli. I say negligent homicide because euthanasia isn't legal in Canada except by means of what is called "passive euthanasia". You can kill a human being for compassionate reasons by starving or suffocating in cases such as this. And as the state refuses to acknowledge the real active nature of this killing, what else is it but negligent homicide?

Joseph's parents, accepting that he would inevitably die from his condition, wanted the hospital to perform a tracheotomy so that they might take Joseph home and allow him to die peacefully and not from the suffocation induced by removing his breathing tube. The couple had a daughter nine years ago with the same condition who was allowed to die peacefully this way. But the doctors refused citing the possibility of complications.

Joseph's breathing tube was scheduled to be removed yesterday. Family Day.

But Joseph's parents got themselves a new lawyer. And apparently he was able to point out that the judge only compelled Joseph's parents to give their consent not that the breathing tube be removed, meaning that they could defy the order, stay Joseph's execution and force the hospital to appeal to the Office of the Public Guardian, which could overrule the requirement that they consent.

This process has bought the Maraachli's time and they are now trying to have Joseph transferred to a hospital in Detroit.

Not being a medical expert, I can't really determine which death is the most humane. Suffocating is obviously not a pleasant way to die and it is assumed by the parents that allowing Joseph's illness to slowly take his life is the best way for him to go. With other forms of euthanasia illegal in Canada, these are the only options.

And just to head this off. This naturally gives fodder to "death panel" hysteria. A death panel isn't quite what this is because barring some medical miracle Joseph is going to die regardless. It's how he is going to die that is at issue. So don't even start.

Ont. couple's appeal to bring baby home dismissed
Dying Ont. baby's fate up to Public Guardian - Windsor - CBC News
Long fight for baby Joseph's life not over yet

 

[In Between Man]

Not being a medical expert, I can't really determine which death is the most humane. Suffocating is obviously not a pleasant way to die and it is assumed by the parents that allowing Joseph's illness to slowly take his life is the best way for him to go. With other forms of euthanasia illegal in Canada, these are the only options.

And just to head this off. This naturally gives fodder to "death panel" hysteria. A death panel isn't quite what this is because barring some medical miracle Joseph is going to die regardless. It's how he is going to die that is at issue. So don't even start.

You don't know whether or not he's going to die! Are you God? Do you know the future?! The only reason why the state and the doctors are advocating the murder of this baby is because they enjoy death! It makes them feel good to play God with someone's life!

You readily admit that your NOT a medical expert and yet your giving us your opinion on what should happen to him!

The only person that should decide what should happen to him is the baby himself. And since he can't speak the law SHOULD assume that he would value his life and want to live - just as you or I would want to if in that situation.

And if you think you would rather die than live if it were you, then its clear that you don't understand how precious life really is.

 

[Corduroy]

You don't know whether or not he's going to die! Are you God? Do you know the future?!

Those with medical expertise are saying he will die. I'm taking their word for it, but you might notice that I allowed for the possibility that he could live when I said barring a miracle.

You readily admit that your NOT a medical expert and yet your giving us your opinion on what should happen to him!

I have not given my opinion on what should happen to him. Can you quote a part of the OP in which I have?

 

[In Between Man]

I have not given my opinion on what should happen to him. Can you quote a part of the OP in which I have?

I can't really determine which death is the most humane. Suffocating is obviously not a pleasant way to die and it is assumed by the parents that allowing Joseph's illness to slowly take his life is the best way for him to go. With other forms of euthanasia illegal in Canada, these are the only options.

Your giving Joseph 2 options: Die via suffocation or die via the illness. Are you not?

 

[lone wolf]

One can't live if one can't breathe. Docs know. They see it too often. Is it in your God's best interest to give artificial life to he whom your God has already made the effort to take?

 

[eh1eh]

Humans supersede 'god' everyday. Every medical procedure circumvents 'god's will'. Is 'god' in charge or are 'humans'. In this case 'humans' are circumventing 'god's will'. WWJD. Lets pull the plug and find out.

 

[weaselwords]

This couple previously had another child die of the same complications. I have no empathy in this case. The parents should have recognized they were at greater risk than others and took precautions to prevent the situation from happenning a second time, whether it be having tubes tied, vasectomy or other method....

 

[captain morgan]

You don't know whether or not he's going to die! Are you God? Do you know the future?! The only reason why the state and the doctors are advocating the murder of this baby is because they enjoy death! It makes them feel good to play God with someone's life!

Keeping the baby alive via artificial means is also playing "God"... Let's face facts, if this baby is not capable of sustaining life on it's own, keeping him alive is now only for the benefit of the parents.

Although he's only a newborn, give the little tyke a bit of dignity and allow nature to takes it's course.

 

[eh1eh]

This couple previously had another child die of the same complications. I have no empathy in this case. The parents should have recognized they were at greater risk than others and took precautions to prevent the situation from happenning a second time, whether it be having tubes tied, vasectomy or other method....

Right. So you have no empathy. I'll consider your opinion with that in mind.
Oh, BTW, don't do anything that costs society money or you will be a hypocrite.

 

[In Between Man]

One can't live if one can't breathe. Docs know. They see it too often. Is it in your God's best interest to give artificial life to he whom your God has already made the effort to take?

God IS NOT trying to "take" this baby. God doesn't give babies diseases and he doesn't kill people. You have a false understanding of God's character.

Why would God wonderfully and fearfully make this baby Joseph (Psalm 139:14), knit him together in his mother's womb (Psalm 139:13), determine the EXACT time of his birth and where (Acts 17:26) and bring him forth on the day of his birth (Psalm 71:6) - only to GIVE him a terminal disease that would cut his life extremely short? Further, God had a LIFE LONG PLAN for Joseph to “prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future" (Jeremiah 29:11)BEFORE he created the foundations of the universe.

All evidence points to God loving Joseph, that he is his treasure possession (Exodus 19:15). Does this sound like a God that gives babies diseases? The truth is that death, disease and destruction only come from one source - the enemy. "The thief has only come to steal, kill and destroy." John (10:10)

 

[lone wolf]

:roll: Yeah ... O-okay....

 

[eh1eh]

God IS NOT trying to "take" this baby. God doesn't give babies diseases and he doesn't kill people. You have a false understanding of God's character.

Why would God wonderfully and fearfully make this baby Joseph (Psalm 139:14), k

nit him together in his mother's womb (Psalm 139:13), determine the EXACT time of his birth and where (Acts 17:26)

and bring him forth on the day of his birth (Psalm 71:6) - only to GIVE him a terminal disease that would cut his life extremely short? Further, God had a LIFE LONG PLAN for Joseph to “prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future" (Jeremiah 29:11)BEFORE he created the foundations of the universe.

All evidence points to God loving Joseph, that he is his treasure possession (Exodus 19:15). Does this sound like a God that give babies diseases? The truth is that death, disease and destruction only come from one source - the enemy. "The thief has only come to steal, kill and destroy." John (10:10)

Everything that exists is because of 'god'? Does only the 'devil' kill babies?

Oh, BTW, sounds like 'god' is using artificial insemination and genetic modification.

God wonderfully and fearfully make this baby Joseph (Psalm 139:14)

nit him together in his mother's womb (Psalm 139:13), determine the EXACT time of his birth and where (Acts 17:26)

 

[Colpy]

This couple previously had another child die of the same complications. I have no empathy in this case. The parents should have recognized they were at greater risk than others and took precautions to prevent the situation from happenning a second time, whether it be having tubes tied, vasectomy or other method....

First of all, Bull****. The choice of trying again was theirs entirely, and they deserve no condemnation for that.

Secondly, it is irrelevant to the discussion. It is done, the child is here......does the fact of the parents (alleged by you) irresponsibility give the state the right to kill?

I think not.

 

[In Between Man]

:roll: Yeah ... O-okay....

Glad to see your agreeing with me!

 

[karrie]

The true measure of a medical care system is its palliative measures, imo, and the doctors refusing a peaceful end, at home with his family, for this child, should be under review.

 

[captain morgan]

Secondly, it is irrelevant to the discussion. It is done, the child is here......does the fact of the parents (alleged by you) irresponsibility give the state the right to kill?

So how far do we take this? Is it the goal of the medical system to force life on a patient regardless of the condition, disease or extent of injury?

Branding the state as "killers" because they don't force life onto this child opens Pandora's Box.

 

[karrie]

Part of appropriate medical care is care for the family. They have obviously not provided adequate care in this case, if the parents are panicked to let the child go in the fashion in which it is being demanded they do. Doctors and counselors should be working together, and the final days for this child should come only when it is a decision reached by the family. Otherwise you're merely traumatising every last individual involved, and I guarantee, when you take a child from its parents' arms and bring about its death despite their desperation, you have branded yourself a killer, like it or not.

 

[captain morgan]

There is also the issue of 'use of facilities'. Not to sound cold-hearted, but deploying medical resources may have an impact on other patients and their families.

when you take a child from its parents' arms and bring about its death despite their desperation, you have branded yourself a killer, like it or not.

I'll ask you the same question as I did Colpy: Do you really want to open Pandora's Box on the issue?

 

[weaselwords]

First of all, Bull****. The choice of trying again was theirs entirely, and they deserve no condemnation for that.

Secondly, it is irrelevant to the discussion. It is done, the child is here......does the fact of the parents (alleged by you) irresponsibility give the state the right to kill?

I think not.

Is it killling if the child going to die in any case?
I don't paticularly care if the view I espouse is relevant to you or not. The fact of the matter is the parents did not act responsibly when they went about conceiving this child nor do they act responsibly using extreme measures to extend this child's life. The child is going to die no matter, just let it go.

Right. So you have no empathy. I'll consider your opinion with that in mind.
Oh, BTW, don't do anything that costs society money or you will be a hypocrite.

I've been smoking for 50 years I'll get my money's worth out of the system before I'm gone

 

[Unforgiven]

The hospital should perform the trichotomy and the parents should take the boy home to die in his bed with those who love him near.

What is the question here? Cost of the Trich? Free up the room, save the money and let the parents wishes be granted.