Charlotte Wyatt/White not sure her name exactly Options

[racoons > you]

Charlotte's a baby born at twenty three weeks.

She's blind deaf and dumb, and has almost no chance of recovering those senses, even should she survive

the hospital [placed her in an incubator, and kept her on medication, in order to keep her alive. She has clinically died several times, but because medicine is sufficiently advancem, doctors keep re-booting her respiratory system, or whatever it is they do exactly, in order to keep her alive.

This is at the wishes of her parents, sctrict christians who want charlotte kept alive in case of a miracle, and that that 99.99% chance of her not surviving turns out not to be the case.

However, doctors have said that her quality of lfe is such that she is in almost constant pain, will never gain any basic senses or be able to walk, and they hve requested permission from the courts to stop treating her, and allow her to die peacefully. Not to actively kill her, note, but rather to withhold treatment should her tiny body fail again.

The judge, against Charlotte's parents' wishes, awarded this right to the hospital, and now Charlotte will be allowed to dieif her heart or lungs fail again. this has angered the parents, who say they love their daughter, and want her kept alive. they have appealed against the court's decision

What do you think? should it be the paents choice, or should doctors be allowed to do what they think is best. I belivev that the parents love for their daughter has clouded their judgemnet, and that Charlotte's 'life' is of such poor quality that she should be allowed to drift out of her misery of her own accord.

[thesensibleman]

MarchHare2UrAlice, you are rather mistaken. . .

Charlotte Wyatt (her name is not White) is not blind, but can see and hear--even the doctors agree to that. . . Even if she was deaf, and blind, and dumb though, she still should be kept alive--that is no excuse for killing her. If what doctors say is true, then she would have been dead last fall.--as it as, she is still alive, and fighting for life.

Charlotte Wyatt has three times stopped breathing, but has been taken care of, she has not "clincally died".

If Charlotte's parents don't want to kill her, or for her to be killed--should the doctors go ahead and kill her anyways? Because it is a socialist country, and they don't get any extra money for caring for her? Should the doctors decide--when they have been proven WRONG multiple times, before they said she would never recover basic senses, now even they admit that she can see and hear. They have said she would have died long ago.

Below I've posted a picture of Charlotte. . . Decide for yourself if the innocent little girl deserves to be helped--or not?



On a moral standpoint--it is not horrible to allow her to live, and it would be, to allow her to die. On a non-moral standpoint--parents should never have to be deprived of the daughter--when something could be done to save her... Either way, Charlotte should live.

Forums are great! But I love Blogs as well, check out this interesting post (read the whole thing):
http://soundingthetrumpet.blogspot.com/200...ey-sent-me.html