Last year, Terri Schiavo's medical trial, which finally came to a head after a Supreme Court decision, caused a wave of uncertainty regarding the adequacy of the guidelines used to decide whether or not a person should be removed from life-support. Schiavo's husband, Micheal, wished to take her off of life-support; she had been unresponsive for over a decade and her doctors provied evidence stating that she was clearly in a vegatative state and could not be revived. However Terri's parents wished her to remain on life-support because they believed there was still a chance she could recover. In the end, the Supreme Court ruled that the decision laid in Terri Schiavo's husband's hands and not her parents'. There was more to the story, or shall I say drama, but Terri Schiavo is not the highlight of this post. Her story is merely meant to serve as a reminder of a recent court decision with regards to removing persons from life-support. Like Schiavo, Haleigh Poutre, 12, appeared to be in a vegetative state beyond recovery. State legislature, supported by medical staff at the institution Haleigh was being held at, battled to have her misery ended. Like Michael Schiavo, they won their case. But before their plans could be carried out, Haleigh awoke, causing a ripple of hope for other unconscious patients around the world and more questioning of the unsatisfacory requirements used to determine whether to remove persons from life-support. Photo found in The Boston Globe's report.
Although Haleigh appeared to unrevivable, she had only been on life-suport for less than a year, unlike Schiavo who had had her life sustained for over ten years. According to the AP, "Haleigh has been in state custody since she was hospitalized in September after a beating allegedly inflicted by her adoptive mother and stepfather.... Haleigh's stepfather was trying to keep her on life support. But before life support could be removed, she suddenly began breathing on her own and responding to questions." Haleigh is now in a rehabilitation center. One suggested modification to the weak laws would require pediatric hospitals to have child abuse teams on their staffs. Another reccomendation suggested that "the Social Services Department get a second opinion from a physician outside the institution where the patient is being treated before any decision is made on withholding life-sustaining treatment. An opinion from the hospital's ethics committee was also recommended." Legislatures have also argued that more detailed informatiin from doctors be given before life-suppord can be withdrawn. While no actions will be taken against Massachusetts' Social Services program or the medical staff at the hospital where Haleigh was being treated at, Massachusetts' governer made it clear that the current child abuse and life-support guidelines are no longer adequate. In response, Massachusetts' Social Services Commissioner Harry Spence tried to justifty the department's failure to remove Haleigh from her home before the brutal beating by saying that social services had believed that Haleigh had been hurting herself, not that she was being abused.
The AP also stated that "Haleigh's adoptive mother, Holli Strickland, died in a murder-suicide shortly after she and her husband were released on bail. Jason Strickland is awaiting trial on an assault charge."
I agree with Xbot...I don't want my family to have to pay, because when that money is gone, guess who has to pay for it? The taxpayers. I am an advocate for less money spent on taxes, and I would hate to be a hypocrite, even if the result is death. Plus...that would just be horrible to my family!
"Only two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity"
-Albert Einstein
Well, you can sign a form stating afer what period of time you would like to be removed from support as easy as you can create a will before you die.
It is so sad that people would abuse any child. Especially when they send that child into a vegitvie state. What is wrong with the world today?
To Life support issues: 2 years is the limit in my opinion - if after 2 years I'm still a veggie, I want the cord cut.
To Social Services embarassment: If a 12 year old girl is cutting herself, those are issues social services should concern themselves with. 12 year old girls DON'T cut themselves; and if they do, it's not due to insanity, it's because something is going on in the home that needs to be examined. As far as I'm concerned, charges should be filed for negligence - it's the social service's job to ensure that adopted children aren't harmed - it's equivelant to malpractice when they fail to do that job. They get paid to ensure kids that are beaten are removed from teh situation - by being negligent (Read: stupid), they made a twelve year old girl lose a year of her life. To me, that's punishable.
____
If a society is willing to give freedom for temporary security, they deserve neither.
Lose a year of her life? She lost more than that. She became brain damaged because her adoptive parents abused her. There were many signs that she was being abused at home. There were something like 16 reports filed of child abuse.
So yes, I'd agree with you. This should be punishable. 12 years don't inflict self-abuse upon themselves, unless there are other home issues that need to be addressed.
I agree; I never suggested they should not be punished, I was just repeating what I read in a news article, and that is that they are not going to be. But yes, even if a 12 year old is cutting herself, or whatever, she needs to be removed from the home. Not because her parents are neccesarially doing a bad job, but because she needs counseling and to be put in some sort of a rehabilitaion home. Gosh, I cant think of the word for what I am talking about. But its the same type of place alcoholics go to when they was to recover...grrr! I hate it when I have brain freeze-ups.