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.

[*tweeak*]

i dont think that they should keep trying to keep her alive at this point, as shes not had a life yet, and thus wont know what shes losing. its cruel of the parents to be keeping her alive at this point. which is not to say that the doctors should kill her, i dont believe in euthenasia, but if they stopped treating her, she most likely wouldnt survive and as christians they should think that that would be the natural way of it. of course, now im rambling and probably never got to an actual point, but ill revise later for clarity

[sporadic]

I think it's selfish of the parents to want their child to stay alive in constant pain. It's not cruel and unusual to let a child die if that child would pretty much have no future. She can't see or hear. All she knows is pain. Why should they keep her alive? So her parents can keep their child, lose most of their money just trying to keep her breathing?

[xx silhouetted]

if they truely are parents then they would not want their practically newborn baby till live in constant pain. if they do, then they're not fit to be parents. which parent would want their child to continue living a lift that cannot be independently lived? the child would be a best (sorry for the bluntness) a vegetable. they'd make the child's life a living hell. those parents disgust me. truely they do.

-- Ivy

[*krnxswat*]

I think it should be the parent's choice. Afterall, it is their baby.

[Ington]

I think they should stop the baby from suffering. On the offchance that a miracle would occur and the baby would live, it would be scarred. Its body wouldn't be as developed as a normal baby, and that would provide for multiple diseases and injuries later on in life. Also, the brain of the baby isn't developed, so the baby would most likely be autistic on a high level. This case isn't morally justified. If the parents really loved the baby they would let it go.

Its so terrible that these things happen, but they do.

[sammi rules you]

it should be the parent's choice, however, the choice they're making is not the right one to me.

[*Weird addiction*]

it should be the parents choice but omfg, she SHOULDN'T be kept alive! shes pratically dead!

[Mireh]

23 weeks....about 7 3/4 months right?

so...approx 1 1/4 month early?

i really don't know about this, it's the parent's choice, technically.

But then again, technically, the baby isn't living. it has no sense of the world around it, and probably never will.

[Spirited Away]

Her parents are human and human are prone to mistakes, but is love and hope that their daughter will have a chance a mistake? It could be depending on our own preferences, but then again, it is a mistake that every loving parent can sympathize with. In that, I don't think any of us can say that they are wrong because none of us are parents. On a moral standpoint, it is horrible that they are allowing her to suffer. But then again, a parent's love can sometime blind them from what is moral.

I think that they should let her go, but the court should not have interfered in my opinion. I'm not a religious person but I do wish them a miracle.

[actionrobot_go]

It should really be the parents descision, but under the circumstances I'm going to have to agree with the doctors. It's unethical to keep a child alive that is going through that much pain. It's terrible, but I think that maybe the baby would be better off dead

[xGlovex]

i dont think that they should keep trying to keep her alive at this point, as shes not had a life yet, and thus wont know what shes losing. its cruel of the parents to be keeping her alive at this point. which is not to say that the doctors should kill her, i dont believe in euthenasia, but if they stopped treating her, she most likely wouldnt survive and as christians they should think that that would be the natural way of it. of course, now im rambling and probably never got to an actual point, but ill revise later for clarity ...
yes what she said

[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