Mother wins right to kill non-terminally ill, disabled daughter
by Kelli
We were constantly in and out of hospital. She never developed more than a six-month-old child.
Simple things like birds singing and hearing children play would put the most beautiful smile on her face. She loved Michael Buble and when I slurped my tea she would give out a hearty chuckle. I gave her the best quality of life she could possibly have….
She was screaming and writhing in agony 24 hours a day. Not being able to ease her suffering was too much to bear….
She wasn’t my angelic child any more, she was a shell. I wanted beautiful memories of Nancy, not soul-crushing ones. After a whole weekend of her screaming in agony, I decided I wasn’t going to watch my little girl suffer any more.
~ Charlotte Fitzmaurice, mother of disabled 12-year-old Nancy Fitzmaurice (pictured), who was starved and dehydrated to death in August after her mother petitioned courts to end Nancy’s life, Inquisitr.com, October 26
The UK’s Mirror notes, “In a landmark decision, Justice King immediately granted Charlotte’s request. Nancy died 14 days later at London’s Great Ormond Street with her family around her after fluids were withdrawn.
The ruling sets a precedent. It is the first time a child breathing on her own, not on life support and not suffering a terminal illness has been allowed to die.”
[Photo from Daily Mail]
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
‘allowed to die’…it is murder
FOURTEEN DAYS?!?!
How is that anything but torture?
“She wasn’t my angelic child any more”
Y’all better learn how to get along real fast. . .
“I wasn’t going to watch my little girl suffer anymore”
So she decided to kill her. Dehydration/starvation is a very painful way to die.
Hi Prax,
Amen!
What parent hasn’t said that? Especially when their “angelic child” becomes a teenager.
What an absolute barbaric way for this child to die. Would an owner be allowed to dispose of a dog or horse this way?
Every year I grow more afraid for the disabled of this country and others in Western Civilization. Truly afraid. Though India is no saint by any means, I’m starting to agree with Gandhi: “What Do You Think of Western Civilization?” “I Think It Would Be a Good Idea.”
“Allowed to die” is the phrase I’ve seen in nearly every article about this horrible situation.
She was most certainly NOT allowed to die. She was FORCED to die.
Why exactly was the child screaming? Seizures, pain, digestive problems? Was there any medical assessment and effort to diagnose and treat her problem? Were there any services available to help the family? Do not try to glamorize the caring of children with challenges. It can be very grueling and its easy to understand that parents can snap. Parents need all the support and assistance they can get. Is humane high standard institutional care available? As one mother who was unable to care for her severely handicapped child wrote: Institution is not a dirty word”.
“What parent hasn’t said that?”
I used to make the joke to others when my children were sleeping after a chaotic day, “Awww look. Aren’t they angels?”
Stories like this really boil my blood. Argh!!!! Yes, I am swearing out loud by myself in the privacy of my own home! FORCED to die is right!
I guess I better be careful so no one hears me or someone might petition a court.
“After a whole weekend of her screaming in agony, I decided I wasn’t going to watch my little girl suffer any more.”
Goodbye colicky babies. Goodbye drug addicts going through withdrawals. Goodbye cancer patients. Goodbye accident survivors. Goodbye mental health patients. Goodbye domestic abuse survivors. Goodbye autistic children. Goodbye drunken patrons. Goodbye hormonal teenagers.
Keep those screams in because the sane people will kill you if you don’t.
Deprive a dog or cat of food and water and you’ll face arrest and conviction of cruelty. Apparently that’s not the case with disabled humans.
Agreed Mary, you couldn’t dispose of an unwanted dog or horse by these means.
Noteworthy in the article: “Not being able to ease her suffering was too much to bear…. I wanted beautiful memories of Nancy… I wasn’t going to watch my little girl suffer”
Euthanasia supporters often appear less concerned about relieving the suffering of the disabled and more about relieving their own discomfort with someone else’s suffering.
Euthanasia supporters often appear less concerned about relieving the suffering of the disabled and more about relieving their own discomfort with someone else’s suffering.
Eric, you summed that up very well.
Her “I’s” give it away.
I wanted
I wasn’t
I decided
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/527851/Mother-heartbreak-allows-disabled-daughter-to-die . You are all so judgmental.
I like the last sentence in the article you reference, Badge:
“It is never ethical to speed up the process of dying by any intervention which has the primary intention to end life”.
“You are all so judgmental.”
You say that like it’s a bad thing.
If there’s anything I think we *should* be judgmental about, it’s the killing of children by their parents.
I judge that it is wrong, whether the child is born or preborn, ill or well, able-bodied or disabled.
You, Badge, have arrived at the judgment that this was totally okay. Others have arrived at a different judgment.
Welcome to the judgmental club.
Regarding starving/dehydrating a child to death, Charlotte Fitzmaurice “insists parents and medics – not judges – should decide”
Should we just call this a full-birth abortion?
Yup, I’m gonna judge parents, medical staff and courts deciding to kill children, too.
Proud to be Praxedes J. Mental.
Badge,
Tell us, what you think of an owner who starves and dehydrates his dog or horse over a two week period? Should this be allowed?
“She was screaming and writhing in agony 24 hours a day. Not being able to ease her suffering was too much to bear” The option does not exist in law to let poor people of any age die with dignity , i guess because of religious pressure put on lawmakers . I am not here to annoy or troll but do not compare this child’s fate to that of a dog or horse that is insulting and a bit daft .
You can buy heroin illegally to manage your child’s pain, but legally you can kill her?
I judge that to be pretty uncivilized. It’s murder.
Badge,
You didn’t answer my question.
What do you think of an owner who starves and dehydrates a horse or dog over a two week period? Should this be allowed?
Do you think humans should be given the same consideration as animals?
“She was screaming and writhing in agony 24 hours a day.”
For how many days? Sleep figures into the equation somewhere.
I’m not downplaying the exhausting task of taking care of a sick child, but I call bs on this statement.
Mary – just answering a question you had posed – I’ve been reading up more on this case – the screaming they speculated was because of pain – she had become medically immune to morphine and ketamine – so it sounds like they couldn’t really treat her pain at all anymore.
Thank you EGV for the feedback.
There are other pain relief alternatives they could have tried, like dilaudid or nerve block, depending on what was causing the pain. Ketamine is an anesthetic not routinely given for pain relief, which really makes me wonder. Was this more to keep her quiet?
Also, they “speculated” the screaming was because of pain. So they really didn’t know and perhaps were not treating the problem? Could it have been autism? Or perhaps just frustration over her inability to communicate? Or treatable pain if they had just determined the cause?
Mary – not sure. I haven’t been able to find much medical stuff – I suppose for good reason – privacy laws and such.
I’m hugging my kids a little closer – couldn’t imagine watching a child go through that – and feel very blessed at the health of my kids. I know a lot of people are throwing stones at these parents. I’m just very glad I’ve never had to walk in their shoes.
Also EGV,
Ketamine can cause terrifying hallucinations and its use is limited. Its great for old people and as an emergency anesthetic, but I would seriously question its use in this situation. Perhaps their efforts to control her pain caused her screaming.
I read ‘cocktail of pain meds that included ketamine and morphine’.
Again,
I would question the use of ketamine, especially when no effort is apparently being made to determine the cause of pain or if the child is even in pain. Also were they drugging her with a lot of medications she didn’t need? Was she going through withdrawal, which can be agonizing.
Hi EGV 10:56PM
I certainly hear you. As I pointed out in a previous post, we can’t romanticize caring for special needs children. It is grueling and parents can snap. I also questioned if this mother got any kind of help or support. Also, I feel there is a need for high quality, humane institutional care. As the mother of a special needs child said years ago: Institution is not a dirty word.
But from the information you have given me I have some serious concerns about her non-diagnosis of pain and its cause, and the loading her up with narcotics and an anesthetic.
especially when no effort is apparently being made to determine the cause of pain or if the child is even in pain
Are you just making things up now? She had meningitis, septicemia, epilepsy, kidney stones, and several neurological disorders. If you know anyone with a medical background, they might be able to help you find out whether any of those conditions can ever cause pain.
LisaC,
Hardly making things up. I was making reference to what EGV told me in his 10:38PM post.
Meningitis and septicemia are treated with antibiotics and will be fatal if untreated. You don’t treat these patients potent pain killers and anesthetics. A meningitis patient may need pain relief from head and neck pain, but its essential to treat the infection or a painful head and neck will be the least of their problems. Epilepsy is treated with anti seizure medication and kidney stones, which are extremely painful, are treated by giving adequate fluids and diet, also surgically. My sister has three or four such surgeries a year due to a calcium metabolism disorder. You give these patients pain relief, then address the problem, which is usually surgical though stones can pass on their own. Neurological disorders are not necessarily painful, but can be debilitating.
You obviously have no medical background. Next time try to talk to someone who does before spouting off.
Expressing horror at this story is not throwing stones at the parents in my opinion. I haven’t walked in their shoes, nor have they walked in mine. I sympathize with people in difficult circumstances but cannot condone starving/dehydrating a loved one.
Here is another story of a mom who has felt the same way about her special needs child. The article quotes the mom, “There’s been times that I have begged God to take her because she’s been so sick that I couldn’t stand to watch her suffer.” She didn’t die and the parents didn’t starve her to death.
http://www.ktuu.com/news/news/using-her-eyes-to-talk/27426080
we are we and He is He.
“Institution is not a dirty word.”
I agree. I have a relative who hated putting her special needs child in a home but he became violent with her and he was too big and strong for her to take care of anymore. He is well taken care of and they enjoy their visits together.
And I do so sympathize with these families.
I know how my heart hurt when my children had broken bones, the flu or went through a break-up. Heck, I was never even very good at dealing with bloody noses or stitches!
We are indeed blessed to have healthy children, Ex-GOP.
I was making reference to what EGV told me in his 10:38PM post.
None of which supported your assertion that no effort was being made to diagnose the child’s pain. Maybe you could find someone to teach you about links, which will help you to gain a modicum of knowledge about an issue before you spout off on it. Diseases may also be more complex or varied than is indicated by the first hit you get on Google.
“She was screaming and writhing in agony 24 hours a day. Not being able to ease her suffering was too much to bear”
Being opposed to the idea that ‘the above implies that euthenizing her is morally permissible’ is not religious; rather, it simply exposes a worldview which holds that suffering is not the greatest form of evil. There seems to be this underlying assumption by those who would approve of killing this girl that there is no greater evil than human suffering and that we should do all we can to keep people from suffering, including killing them. But this is a huge assumption. It is to argue from the worldview of hedonism. But one need not be religious to be opposed to hedonism.
I have dealt with a close loved one on hospice (who had frightening hallucinations thanks to certain pain relief drugs he was given) as well as my own husband having gone through months of extreme health woes, including septicemia, which was treated with extremely strong antibiotics.
Mary is on the money with her comments. Something doesn’t add up with the details we’ve been given about this girl’s case. To me, it sounds like there was some negligence going on.
Charlotte Fitzmaurice Wise has recently posted a statement on her Facebook page.
Charlotte says she chose to be her daughter’s only caregiver because she thought it would be detrimental to her daughter to have anyone else help out. She claims she was with her daughter 24 hours 7 days for 12 years. No respite, no school (although later she says she went to court but maybe she took Nancy along?). If this is true, this is not healthy for child or caregiver and I wish others would have stepped in.
Charlotte makes the statement, “see Nancy was always going to die and all I was asking was that it was allowed to happen sooner”. One of Charlotte’s friends says she has seen what Charlotte has been through and, “no mother should have to go through that.” These statements upset me because they are so similar to what proborts use to rationalize abortion and we are all going to die and others shouldn’t get to decide to speed up the process.
I don’t understand the medical issues Charlotte talks about but maybe someone else here can?
“To me, it sounds like there was some negligence going on.”
And verbal abuse. Mom refers to Nancy as a “little f*cker” on FB. If she’s comfortable calling her daughter that on social media, I can’t imagine what she talked like to Nancy.
Heartbreaking.
LisaC,
EGV -the screaming they SPECULATED was because of pain- My emphasis.
Mary -Especially when no effort is apparently being made to determine the cause of pain or if the child is even in pain.
Now obviously, I am making no assertion that there is no effort to diagnose the child’s pain. If they are only speculating on her pain, then it is apparent there is not any effort to determine if she in fact is in pain. To me its just stating the obvious.
Speaking of obtaining a modicum of knowledge, you should practice what you preach.
Hi Praxedes,
So the woman CHOSE to go it alone. She very possibly could have had help, but chose not to for some reason? I have even less sympathy for people who seem to wallow in their martyrdom.
Also Prax, a friend of mine and her husband had a severely autistic child who they placed in a group home as an adult. He is much happier and she and her husband can finally have a life. They have certainly earned it.
Hi Kel,
Something just doesn’t wash. They drug this child with pain killers for what? They only “speculated” on her pain? Ketamine? That should be used only under very controlled conditions and on a limited population and limited circumstances. From what Prax tells us of the mother, its my opinion that woman had some serious issues of her own.
Here is the FB comment this mom made in December 2012 where she called her daughter a terrible name, “Rob I was gonna say on your way to work bring us a coffee lol the little f*cker got up at 2 and is still wide awake now that’s even after 5 doses of sleeping meds!! I need a bloody crane to keep my eyes open.”
What were the sleeping meds she was giving to a disabled ten year old? And five doses? I don’t know anything abut sleeping medications but I would think withdrawals could cause pain and outbursts?
I personally think an investigation should be done.
Hi Prax,
You’re absolutely correct. Withdrawal can be excrutiating. After EGV informed me she was becoming resistant to pain meds, that was my suspicion. She’s been loaded up with drugs, especially narcotics, and craves them. Like any addict would. Five doses of sleeping meds?
It sounds like this “mother” liked portraying herself as some kind of suffering soul.
Also if the child was given Ketamine, there’s the likelihood of terrifying hallucinations, another reason she may have been screaming. I would definitely consider the administration of ketamine as abuse and can think of NO justification for it.
A few days ago a friend of mine died. She had lupus and a host of other medical issues. She had suffered for many years. Was fed by stomach tube for many years because even eating a tic-tac made her vomit uncontrollably. She was married but was unable to have children because of all her medical issues. She became a foster parent until she became too sick to do that. She died at only 39 years of age.
Before she died she wrote that suffering can be a beautiful thing. That for the believer, suffering can mold us more into the image of Christ and that she never felt God was so near to her as when she began to suffer the way she had.
Bobby Bambino–what you wrote just made me think of that.
One wonders what sort of sanctimonious fear-mongering created a situation whereby the poor child had to die by starvation and dehydration rather than through a faster, far less painful method.
I see 88% on the Mirror poll agreed with the mother’s choice.
Reality,
So the majority agreeing with this mother’s “choice” made it right?
Why did the child have to die at all?
I agree Mary that it sounds like this mom has some issues. Interesting that she lists two favorite books on FB, one of which is Fifty Shades of Grey. She also lists two favorite movies, one of which is Fifty Shades of Grey.
If you polled drug addicts, the majority might think it is okay to give a child five doses of sleeping meds. A majority of psychopaths might think a faster, less painful way to kill a human would be a bullet to the back of the head over starvation/dehydration, too.
I would never leave this woman to care for another child or handicap adult.
I am sorry for your loss, Sydney. She sounds like she was a wonderful woman and friend.
Who’s to say to what extent it was or wasn’t ‘right’ Mary. The fact that an overwhelming majority of those who polled said they would make the same choice in the same circumstances is indicative of it being considered ‘right’ enough.
You think the child was going to live a whole lot longer? Screaming and writhing in pain all the way?
It was doctors who decided on the meds, not drug addicts or the mother. Nor were psychopaths making the decision on how the child’s demise should occur (although one could argue that it was – indirectly – due to the doctors not being in a position to use a quicker and less painful methodology). It was medical people who were obviously forced into the least dreadful way they were permitted to carry out.
I can’t wait to see what doctor(s) admit to telling a parent to give a ten-year-old five doses of sleeping meds.
Reality,
I just did a little googling and apparently in 1950, the majority of Southerners supported segregation and inequality of black citizens. The fact that a majority supported segregation and inequality is indicative of it being considered “right” enough.
Just using your argument Reality.
Sometimes the majority isn’t always right, wouldn’t you agree?
EGV pointed out it was “speculated” the child was in pain. She was given pain killers and an anesthetic…based on speculation?
How do you know who decided on the meds? Also the fact doctors decide on meds does not make them safe or non addictive. We’ve certainly heard of cases of doctors illegally prescribing dangerous drugs. I believe the name Michael Jackson comes to mind. Do you know for a fact the mother didn’t obtain drugs illegally?
You still haven’t told me why the child should die.
Good job we aren’t in 1950, or the deep south then eh. Did your googling give you results for the whole of the US?
I didn’t say they were right, did I now. I said they agreed with her choice.
Child screaming and writhing. Child suffering from a range of serious ailments. Whose diagnosis is likely to be right -the attending team of medicos or Mary? Hm, what a choice.
“How do you know who decided on the meds?” – really, how far do you want to take this sort of stuff? Who do you think decided on the meds – the butcher, the baker or the candlestick maker?
“Also the fact doctors decide on meds does not make them safe or non addictive.” – indeed, I didn’t say otherwise.
“We’ve certainly heard of cases of doctors illegally prescribing dangerous drugs.” – we have. And? Are you alleging that has occurred in this case?
“I believe the name Michael Jackson comes to mind.” – so what.
“Do you know for a fact the mother didn’t obtain drugs illegally?” – wow, you’re really hooked on this conspiracy theory stuff aren’t you.
“You still haven’t told me why the child should die.” – yes, I just love the thinking that says a long and painful death is somehow better than a fast and painful death. Oh joy.
Because of all the questions raised in this short thread alone, I think an investigation should be done.
Reality,
So we are in agreement then that what the majority thinks isn’t always right or relevant.
I made no diagnosis. I responded to what other posters wrote. None of these conditions mentioned would require massive doses of narcotics or an anesthetic. Also, apparently doctors were not so certain she was in pain. They were speculating. So very possibly she was fed large doses of drugs she may not have needed.
Do you know what condition she had that allegedly caused so much pain? Also, screaming and writhing can be from drug withdrawal.
Well Reality, you pointed out that it was doctors who prescribed her drugs. I’m pointing out that doctors can’t always be trusted when it comes to drugs and their administration. You know, like Michael Jackson.
You said the drugs were prescribed. So do you know for a fact the mother never obtained illegal drugs? Maybe all these drugs were in fact not prescribed.
You don’t explain why the child had to have any kind of death, fast or slow.
They drug this child with pain killers for what?
Pain.
They only “speculated” on her pain?
Ex-GOP made that up. You really ought to try having someone show you how to follow the links to the Inquisitr and Mirror stories, which give no indication that the pain was speculative. Apparently you believe that someone who cannot tell you that s/he is in pain probably isn’t in pain. Medical professionals would disagree.
I would definitely consider the administration of ketamine as abuse and can think of NO justification for it.
Ketamine is sometimes used as an anticonvulsant for epilepsy when other medications are ineffective.
LisaC,
What specifically caused her pain? None of the conditions you posted are necessarily painful or are managed with large doses of narcotics. In fact, the meningitis and septicemia you mention will be fatal if not treated with antibiotics and the appropriate supportive care.
I’m well aware that because a patient can’t tell you they are in pain doesn’t mean they are not. I’m also aware that a patient may be wrongly assessed because they cannot adequately communicate, or may have a treatable condition, such as kidney stones, go undiagnosed.
Also LisaC, you would be well advised to read what the newspapers say with high degree of skepticism. These are people who also have no medical knowledge. I have seen blatant falsehoods time and again.
I stand corrected, oral ketamine can indeed be used for the pediatric patient with severe epilepsy that is unresponsive to any other type of treatment. However Ketamine can be a seizure inducing drug that needs to be used with extreme caution in epileptics.
Use of ketamine for pain relief is what would not be appropriate, and could well induce hallucinations.
LisaC,
My very elderly mother was in excrutiating pain weeks after recovering from a femur fracture. x-rays showed nothing. Her complaints were brushed off, she’s just looking for drugs. Everyone “knew” there wasn’t a problem, though she was well able to communicate no one took her seriously. She lives in a different state so I had little knowledge of what was going on. I took the word of my sister, a nurse, and her husband, a doctor, that there was nothing wrong. So yes, medical people are definitely not infallible.
Her stepdaughter suggested an MRI, which found a hairline pelvic stress fracture. The bones rubbed together, which must have been excrutiating. Thankfully it was a surgically correctable problem.
My point is its easy to make the wrong assumption when the patient can communicate, much more so when the patient can’t. Treatable painful conditions may go undiagnosed and the patient medicated instead, simply because its just easier to keep them quiet.
Hi Prax,
Some years ago a woman shot her two Huntington Disease afflicted sons who she finally allowed to be put in a nursing home. Her husband had died of the affliction. The woman’s whole life, literally, was the care of her husband and sons. People from Huntington Disease organizations were outraged. They pointed out the services available, and that while they were heartbroken over their afflicted loved ones, killing was not even a thought. There was no reason for this woman to be driven to this point as far as they were concerned.
Maybe there were some psychological issues here. Maybe when she could no longer care for her sons her purpose in life was gone or she viewed herself as a failure. However, there was no question of her love and devotion to her sons, whatever other issues she may have had.
Can you source her calling her daughter a “litte f—- on FB? Thanks Prax.
LisaC,
I did some checking and Ketamine was used for pain relief. If therapeutic doses were given for control of seizures, that’s one thing. Ketamine given as an anesthetic, which it is, may induce seizures in an epileptic and hallucinations as well, epileptic or not. In fact it may induce seizure activity in non epileptics.
So given this info, I stand by what I said. The use of this drug for pain relief could well have led to the child’s agitation and screaming and I question the appropriateness of its use for that purpose.
An article by the parent of a special needs child.
http://www.emaxhealth.com/12577/one-mothers-decision-let-her-daughter-die
The above posted article states that the child was in agonizing pain after routine surgery for kidney stones. Really? People have kidney stone surgery all the time, my sister has had 3 or 4 a year for the past 30 years or so. For the most part patients have surgery and go home the same day, greatly relieved their pain is over.
A patient in agony hours after kidney stone surgery is cause for serious concern. Is the patient passing more stones? Was there an injury during surgery? You certainly don’t keep drugging the patient. Something is very wrong and must be addressed.
Unlike most kidney stone patients, Nancy was unable to communicate where her pain was or if she even was in pain.
If she was still passing kidney stones, that poor child was going through the tortures of hell.
https://www.facebook.com/charlotte.fitzmaurice?fref=ts&ref=br_tf
Hi Mary, December 2, 2012 is the conversaton.
Hi Prax,
Thank you so much for the source.
You are welcome, Mary.
I went into the article you posted (which led me to other articles). It is upsetting.
“So we are in agreement then that what the majority thinks isn’t always right or relevant” – ‘majority’? Would you accept a poll of ‘who believes in god’ conducted in a church on a sunday morning being representative of a ‘majority’ of US citizens?
“I’m pointing out that doctors can’t always be trusted when it comes to drugs and their administration. You know, like Michael Jackson.” – you do realize which hospital she was in don’t you?
“So do you know for a fact the mother never obtained illegal drugs? Maybe all these drugs were in fact not prescribed.” – and now she’s broadcasting it across the media?
Your conspiracy theories get more and more outlandish.
“You don’t explain why the child had to have any kind of death, fast or slow.” – her own body dictated it. The relevant question is would you have preferred it to be slow and painful or short and painful?
Reality,
OK, so the poll you mentioned where the respondents agreed with the mother was irrelevant.
What is the relevance of the hospital she was in? Also, the drugs were given when she was out of the hospital.
Who’s broadcasting what? Obtaining drugs illegally is hardly conspiratorial. Its done all the time. I raise the possibility. If she did or not I have no idea.
Her own body dictated nothing. She was starved and dehydrated.
No, the relevant question is why was she killed?
“OK, so the poll you mentioned where the respondents agreed with the mother was irrelevant.” – not at all. Why do you just make stuff up.
“What is the relevance of the hospital she was in?” – of course, I should have realized. No matter how crazy the inference that such an establishment would act as Michael Jackson’s doctor did, you’re still happy to do so.
“Also, the drugs were given when she was out of the hospital.” – and so the mother then broadcast to the world that she’d done something illegal or such did she?
“Who’s broadcasting what? Obtaining drugs illegally is hardly conspiratorial. Its done all the time. I raise the possibility. If she did or not I have no idea.” – yet you’ll happily make all sorts of accusations simply because you don’t like what she’s done. That’s all there is to it.
“Her own body dictated nothing.” – really?
” No, the relevant question is why was she killed?” – to end her interminable suffering. Not everyone considers that a blessing you know. Would you have preferred it to be slow and painful or short and painful?
Reality,
OK, so the poll is valid. So were the polls of 1950 southern whites, the majority of whom supported segregation and second class citizenship for black Americans. So, if the majority says something is right, then it indicative of it being “right” enough. At least according to your 12:24am post.
You fail to establish the relevance of the hospital she was in. I pointed out that doctors prescribe inappropriate meds. That was my point. She wasn’t always in the hospital. The meds were prescribed for her home use.
No, the mother broadcast nothing at all. She gave prescribed drugs. That does not mean these drugs appropriately treated her child. I accused her of nothing.
Correct, her own body dictated nothing. Can you tell me how she was dying prior to her being starved and dehydrated?
I never said suffering was a blessing. What was causing her pain? The only thing I can find is kidney stones. Yes these are excrutiatingly painful, but certainly not terminal and definitely treatable. My sister has lived with them for almost 50 years and will live with them until she dies, which I hope is not for a long, long time.
If this poor child was indeed suffering from undiagnosed and untreated kidney stones, then I can believe she screamed in agony 24 hours a day.
“So, if the majority says something is right, then it indicative of it being “right” enough.” – ‘majority’?
“At least according to your 12:24am post.” – the one where I didn’t claim it was categorically right?
“You fail to establish the relevance of the hospital she was in.” – no, you do.
“I pointed out that doctors prescribe inappropriate meds. That was my point.” – they can do, that doesn’t mean it’s necessary to paint the situation as one of malice or ill-intent simply because you don’t like the way things went.
“She wasn’t always in the hospital. The meds were prescribed for her home use.” – not by the easter bunny.
“No, the mother broadcast nothing at all.” – so you haven’t even read the article.
“I accused her of nothing.” – yet you said “So do you know for a fact the mother never obtained illegal drugs? Maybe all these drugs were in fact not prescribed.”
“Correct, her own body dictated nothing.” – I’d love to know how you come to think that’s ‘correct’.
“Can you tell me how she was dying prior to her being starved and dehydrated?” – she wasn’t expected to live past the age of four. Epilepsy with seizures arrived. An operation in May 2012 to remove kidney stones left her with an infection and specialists said there was nothing more they could do.
“I never said suffering was a blessing.” – so you do support a quick death over a long, painful one.
“What was causing her pain? The only thing I can find is kidney stones.” – which were removed, leaving her with an untreatable infection.
I don’t know why they didn’t have her Christened until they stopped administering fluids. It just sounds like maybe they were not faith filled Christian. And that’s hard, to go through life without believing God is good. When you can’t see the light in the dark, eventually, death will be the answer. That’s why Jesus is also called the “good news”.
“And that’s hard, to go through life without believing God is good.” – not in the least.
“When you can’t see the light in the dark, eventually, death will be the answer.” – it’s called keeping one’s eyes open. Not living with fear. And why would death be the answer anyway, there are other options.
“That’s why Jesus is also called the “good news”. – for whom?
Reality,
You used the term “overwhelming majority of those polled”.
OK Reality, I give up. Tell me the relevance of where she was hospitalized.
Reality, if you think all doctors can be trusted to wisely dispense drugs then you are a definite believer in the Easter bunny.
I think there is a strong possibility not all the drugs she was given were prescribed, especially the high doses of sleeping medication she posted on FB that she gave her daughter. However, without evidence I can hardly accuse her.
What did her body dictate? Was she terminally ill? The starvation and dehydration are what killed her. Unless she was an untreated diabetic, there was nothing natural about it.
She wasn’t expected to live past the age of four? Well surprise. Contrary to popular misconception doctors are not prophets. Epilepsy is a treatable condition. People live with it every day. They removed kidney stones and this left her with an untreatable infection? Where was the infection? How was it caused? Could there have possibly been a mistake made during surgery? Was she running a fever? Was she septic?
Do I support a quick death over a long, painful one? I don’t support starving and dehydrating someone.
BTW Reality, removing kidney stones is a treatment, not a cure. They will likely recur and very likely could have been causing this child’s pain.
I would also point out there are alternatives to pain medications, such as nerve blocks. These are used on cancer patients, people with debilitating pain, surgical patients, etc. In fact, I have been involved in such procedures for cancer, as well as surgical patients.
I did, as in “an overwhelming majority of those who polled said they would make the same choice in the same circumstances.”
“OK Reality, I give up.” – oh don’t do that. You’ve so much journey still to make.
“Tell me the relevance of where she was hospitalized.” – are you kidding? You’re equating a medical team at Great Ormond Street with one doctor in Michael Jackson’s house who’s paid to administer what Michael wants? Do you equate your local pharmacist with drug dealers too?
“Reality, if you think all doctors can be trusted to wisely dispense drugs then you are a definite believer in the Easter bunny.” – who said ‘wisely’? I said without malice or ill-intent.
“However, without evidence I can hardly accuse her.” – indeed, you shouldn’t.
“What did her body dictate? Was she terminally ill?” – have you completely ignored what was going on with this little girl? Why?
“The starvation and dehydration are what killed her. Unless she was an untreated diabetic, there was nothing natural about it.” – so you still adhere to long and painful rather than shorter and painful then.
“She wasn’t expected to live past the age of four? Well surprise. Contrary to popular misconception doctors are not prophets.” – that’s true (despite some peoples seemingly irresistible faith in them).
“Epilepsy is a treatable condition.” – usually, to some extent or other.
“People live with it every day.” – and some die with it.
“They removed kidney stones and this left her with an untreatable infection?” – that’s what they said.
Given any thought as to the impact of all these maladies combined? No?
“How was it caused? Could there have possibly been a mistake made during surgery?” – yes there may have. That’s not the point. The point is that she had an infection. How it happened isn’t going to change that.
“Do I support a quick death over a long, painful one? I don’t support starving and dehydrating someone.” – so you agree that a quicker and less painful method should have been available for use?
“BTW Reality, removing kidney stones is a treatment, not a cure. They will likely recur and very likely could have been causing this child’s pain.” – not overnight.
Reality,
The overwhelming majority of the people who were polled. How many were polled?
How many times must I tell you, I am referring the prescribing of drugs she received at home. Got it?
Without malice or ill intent. LOLLLL. Now its really obvious you believe in the Easter bunny.
I know what the media says was going on with her, and I’ve learned from past experience to be highly skeptical of the media when it comes to medical matters. So please tell me what did her body dictate?
The starvation and dehydration killed her. How do you get that I adhere to a long and painful death by my stating how she died?
Epilepsy can be, but does not have to be lifelong. Yes people may die with it. Your point?
The impact of all these maladies combined? What is the impact?
Kidney stones won’t recur overnight?? Well, there might be a stone that was missed. Also, this wasn’t overnight.
So not too many details on this infection, we’ve just been told was causing her pain and why it couldn’t be treated.
Yes, 88%. I don’t know how many but I’m confident they weren’t all from the deep south of 1950.
Ah, so you do equate your friendly neighborhood pharmacist with back-alley drug dealers.
How do you know which drugs she received at home?
Thinking a team at Great Ormond Street would operate in the same manner as Michael Jackson’s personal doctor, now that’s easter bunny territory.
You can be skeptical of the media. It doesn’t sound like the judge was skeptical of the medical team though.
Do you support the concept of a quicker and less painful method being used?
Epilepsy may not have to be lifelong but it can be. The point is that it can be much more harmful than you are willing to admit.
How do you know it wasn’t overnight?
Yes, the experts at Great Ormond Street have told us so.
and I question the appropriateness of its use for that purpose.
And yet, somehow, prescribing decisions are reserved for physicians who did not learn about the drug two hours ago via Google. It’s a mad, mad world.
Not quite LisaC,
You notice I said for the purpose of pain relief and why I have concerns about it. The articles say she was on it for pain relief.
I could find nothing about her being on ketamine for seizures. The articles say it has very limited use and very limited circumstances. Whether this was the type of epilepsy she had isn’t pointed out. Again, I’m skeptical of the media.
As I have also pointed out, there are alternatives just as nerve blocks, often used for cancer patients and other debilitating pain. There may well have been a way to get her off pain meds, or at very least reduce her need for them.
Other than the kidney stones, which are treatable, have you found out what was causing her pain and required her to be on such heavy doses of pain meds?
Again who’s giving out the info? The media? Be very cautious.
Reality,
I didn’t ask where they came from, I asked about the number of people polled. For putting such credence in this poll you don’t seem to know too much about it. Was it scientifically conducted or some key you hit on your computer?
Uh no Reality. You must be getting bleary eyed. I made no such comparison.
According to what info is out there, she received a morphine/ketamine mix which was no longer offering relief. She lived at home. Drugs would be administered to her at home.
I wasn’t referring to the doctors at the hospital. For some reason that just isn’t registering with you.
A judge?It was the mother’s appeal. I think it was about 300 words. Let’s see, didn’t judges condemn the innocent in Nazi Germany? You put way too much faith in the “wisdom” of judges Reality. They are as biased, bigoted, prejudiced, and elitist as the rest of us mortals.
No, I don’t support a quicker and less painful method. I support no method at all.
Yes I’m well aware of how harmful epilepsy can be. I’ve seen my fair of seizures. Fortunately I happened to be in the area of a store when a young man threw himself on the floor with such force you could hear his head crack. I stayed with him until the paramedics arrived, he regained consciousness and was transported. His friends said he had been drinking. Bad combination, epilepsy and alcohol.
Anyway, my point is people live with it for a lifetime, some people’s seizures will just stop. Really not a justification for starving and dehydrating someone.
The experts have told us what? All I’ve seen is what is printed in the paper and what the mother says.
LisaC,
Speaking of treating seizures, I understand that now some marijuana plant extract has been very effective in treating children who have severe and ongoing seizures, one parent said up to 30 a day and more. Its a particular type of epilepsy, the children are born with it, maybe even genetic. Other treatments have been tried and failed. Parents have been relocating to Colorado so their children can be treated.
A group of growers there specialize in producing this extract .
The parents swear by the effectiveness, if a child is even down to 5 or 6 seizures a day that is a vast improvement.
Fantastic news, though I suspect Big Pharma won’t be too happy. As far as I’m concerned if it works, go for it. The extract certainly can’t be any more harmful than the drugs these children are given.
How many were polled in the 1950 deep south poll? Was it scientifically conducted or some key you hit on your computer?
“Uh no Reality. You must be getting bleary eyed. I made no such comparison.” – you have all but accused the medicos and the mother of delivering unknown or inappropriate medication.
“Drugs would be administered to her at home.” prescribed by?
“I wasn’t referring to the doctors at the hospital.” – ah, more conspiracy theory.
“A judge?It was the mother’s appeal. I think it was about 300 words. Let’s see, didn’t judges condemn the innocent in Nazi Germany?” – yes, just like the ones who deemed a corporate entity as a person with religious beliefs. Hm.
“You put way too much faith in the “wisdom” of judges Reality. They are as biased, bigoted, prejudiced, and elitist as the rest of us mortals.” – I’ll not hear you applaud them next time they come down with a decision you agree with then?
“No, I don’t support a quicker and less painful method. I support no method at all.” – so, slow and painful it is.
“Yes I’m well aware of how harmful epilepsy can be. Bad combination, epilepsy and alcohol.” – do you think the child consumed alcohol?
“Anyway, my point is people live with it for a lifetime, some people’s seizures will just stop.” – some. Some.
“Really not a justification for starving and dehydrating someone.” – you still refuse to acknowledge that it was a combination of serious maladies that impacted, not just this one or that one.
“The experts have told us what? All I’ve seen is what is printed in the paper and what the mother says.” – so you have information otherwise? The judge decided without hearing from the medicos?
All you have done from the start is basically accuse the medicos and the mother of incompetence at the least or downright malicious and illegal acts at worst. I get that you don’t like the chosen path but…….
Reality,
You put so much credence in the poll, tell me what you know about it. As for the south, I did some googling. I didn’t find the results too surprising.
No, I have raised serious questions about the care and assessment of this child. Drugging any patient, adult or child, to the point of such high tolerance can be avoided, by good pain assessment and alternative pain treatments.
We assume all drugs administered at home were prescribed by the doctor. Also I have pointed out that doctors do not always exercise great wisdom in the dispensing of drugs.
The judges who deemed a corporate entity with religious beliefs. Sure Reality, and let’s not forget the judges who sanctioned segregation and placing Japanese American citizens in concentration camps. I’m glad we agree that judges can make very biased, dubious, and questionable decisions. Geez, you’d almost think they’re human.
Let me make this simple for you since you have a problem with reading comprehension. I do not support a slow or quick death for this child. I support no death at all for her. Got it?
Yeah Reality, I bet she could belt back a couple of six packs a night.
Right, epilepsy can be unpredictable. Some people will have one seizure and that’s it. People may go years between seizures, and some people will need to spend their entire lives on medication.
So tell me all her serious maladies.
The mother made a statement to the court. About 300 words I believe. You can check it out in the link I posted. You’re right, the information is limited and you know the great relevance I place in media’s reporting of this.
No Reality, what I have done is raise some serious questions, like what exactly was causing her pain, had she been assessed and had alternative treatments, like nerve blocks, been considered? How is it this child is on such potent pain meds? Adult or child every effort should be made to seek out alternatives to addicting potent drugs, that’s why we have nerve blocks. Praxedes pointed out the FB post, which I also read, that her mother gave her 5 doses of sleeping medication and lovingly referred to her as a “little f—–” 5 doses of sleeping meds? Maybe the doctor didn’t order it given that way but mom does anyway. All this raises red flags for me.
“You put so much credence in the poll, tell me what you know about it” – 88% said they’d make the same choice. The poll wasn’t taken in 1950 deep south.
“As for the south, I did some googling. I didn’t find the results too surprising.” – why not? Are there results for a similar poll taken all across the US?
“No, I have raised serious questions about the care and assessment of this child. Drugging any patient, adult or child, to the point of such high tolerance can be avoided, by good pain assessment and alternative pain treatments” – let me see, who would I choose, a team of medicos at Great Ormond Street or Mary with an agenda?
“We assume all drugs administered at home were prescribed by the doctor.” – do you have any evidence otherwise?
“Also I have pointed out that doctors do not always exercise great wisdom in the dispensing of drugs.” – true, but that is not indicative of ill-intent.
Well most judges are human. Some are also just plain stupid.
“I support no death at all for her.” – you could have rendered her immortal?!?
You’re the one who introduced alcohol as a contributor to the effects of epilepsy.
Why do you only speak of the minor and/or short-lived impacts of epilepsy? Why ignore the more serious and lifelong instances?
“So tell me all her serious maladies.” – you STILL haven’t read the article?!? Not even the one you linked to?!?
Do you know what the mothers 324 word statement said? Do you know what answers to questions from the judge she may have given? How do you know the information the judge relied on was ‘limited’?
Great Ormond Street would have raised the serious questions. And as a team, come up with the best solutions they could. You are questioning the medical expertise and intentions of people who are amongst the best in the world in that field.
Reality,
You know what the poll said and where it wasn’t taken. But you haven’t told me the number of people polled or if it is in fact a scientific poll.
No, the results were pretty much limited to the south.
Well, I would have my reservations about the Great Ormand Street. They did starve and dehydrate a child for two weeks. And even you admit this was slow and painful.
No, but I do wonder about giving a child 5 doses of sleeping medication. Do you think this is something a doctor routinely prescribes for a child?
Well, if they don’t exercise a lot of wisdom dispensing drugs it won’t matter if it was ill intent or not, right? The result will be the same.
We definitely agree about the judges.
I should have said I do not support deliberately killing her.
You really have a problem reading comprehension don’t you? I pointed out the young man who suffered a violent seizure had drank alcohol, which should be avoided with epilepsy. Of course a young man wants to party with his friends and a seizure like this can be the result if one is epileptic.
Certainly epilepsy is to be treated very seriously. Every patient is different. I point out that people live a lifetime with epilepsy that is controlled by medication and live very normal lives.
I’ve read her maladies but you’re the one making such an issue of them. As I said I’m very skeptical of the media reporting and we are getting limited information.
I only know what my link said. 300 or so words to describe her daughter and her circumstances and medical situation? Well, at least she kept it brief. I said the information we get is limited.
So you trust a hospital that would starve and dehydrate a child for two weeks, subjecting her to a death you describe as slow and painful. That’s all I need to know concerning their “medical expertise”.
“But you haven’t told me the number of people polled or if it is in fact a scientific poll.” – I’ve already told you that I don’t know how many took it – at 1:54am.
“No, the results were pretty much limited to the south” – not all that valuable then. Were the black folk of the deep south included?
“Well, I would have my reservations about the Great Ormand Street. They did starve and dehydrate a child for two weeks.” – as it was the only method permitted. As I said at the start, without needing to be mindful of the sanctimonious a better way could have been employed.
“And even you admit this was slow and painful.” – yes, I would support a much better method. But that wasn’t permitted.
“No, but I do wonder about giving a child 5 doses of sleeping medication. Do you think this is something a doctor routinely prescribes for a child?” – depends on the physiology and case history doesn’t it.
“Well, if they don’t exercise a lot of wisdom dispensing drugs it won’t matter if it was ill intent or not, right? The result will be the same.” – do you know how the Great Ormond team work in cases such as this?
“We definitely agree about the judges.” – except when we disagree over their decisions right?
“I should have said I do not support deliberately killing her.” – you prefer prolonged suffering?
“You really have a problem reading comprehension don’t you? I pointed out the young man who suffered a violent seizure had drank alcohol, which should be avoided with epilepsy. Of course a young man wants to party with his friends and a seizure like this can be the result if one is epileptic.” – and it’s relevance to the young girl’s epilepsy was?
“Certainly epilepsy is to be treated very seriously. Every patient is different. I point out that people live a lifetime with epilepsy that is controlled by medication and live very normal lives.” – I noticed that, that’s why I mentioned what you won’t point out.
“I’ve read her maladies but you’re the one making such an issue of them. As I said I’m very skeptical of the media reporting and we are getting limited information.” – so what did the judge think she was suffering from, a cold?
“I only know what my link said. 300 or so words to describe her daughter and her circumstances and medical situation?” – you don’t think the medical team provided information for the judge? He made his decision based on the mother’s request only?
“Well, at least she kept it brief. I said the information we get is limited.” – so you admit you have no idea what her statement included. Or what other information was provided.
“So you trust a hospital that would starve and dehydrate a child for two weeks, subjecting her to a death you describe as slow and painful.” – it wasn’t their choice.
“That’s all I need to know concerning their “medical expertise”. – as compared to your ideological position.
Reality,
Well then you don’t really know the number of people polled or if it was scientific. Do you think black people would be polled on whether they approve of segregation and inequality?
A better way to kill the child. How about gas chambers like the ones that were in use in German hospitals prior to and during the Nazi era? The death camps weren’t the first to employ them.
5 doses of sleeping medication is excessive. This would indicate the patient is building a tolerance, requiring more and more. Maybe you should assess why someone isn’t sleeping normally.
I was speaking generally. If a doctor of any sort doesn’t exercise good judgment dispensing drugs, the result is the same, intentional malice or not.
Well I guess rulings are a matter of perspective. I’m sure racists were thrilled with the segregation ruling.
Well Reality, do you know if the doctors spoke in court? Yes what she said was brief. But I suppose it doesn’t take long to ask for your child to be starved.
Good grief Reality, can’t you read? I simply made a statement about epilepsy and alcohol. I never said it had any relevance to the child.
I don’t know what the judge thought. Any idea what maladies people should be starved and dehydrated for?
So Great Ormand was forced to starve and dehydrate this child whether they wanted to or not? Doctors and nurses are forced to violate their ethics? Do you have a problem with this?
Of course there will be some people who disagree with the decision, but most will not.
Most would not want such suffering for their kids, nor would most want to live in such pain themselves.
Clete,
Did this child have a choice? How do you know if she wanted to live or not?
Also, would you advocate the use of gas chambers in hospitals to dispose of children and adults like this, as we done in German hospitals prior to and during the Nazi era?
The last sentence of my post should read: as was done in German hospitals prior to and during the Nazi era.
I think the most deplorable thing is that the woman and her accomplice, the state, chose such an agonizing end for this innocent child. No morphine overdose for this poor little girl. She suffered the agony of hunger and thirst.
This is just so vicious.
Cattle in the UK get a better death than this.
Maybe gas chambers would be more humane. They’re quick and efficient. Why not install them in every hospital as was done before and after the rise of the Nazis in Germany.
10 likes for Reality and LisaC???? It is a mad mad world.
Mary, you seem to have struck a nerve with the pro-death crowd.
Also LisaC, you would be well advised to read what the newspapers say with high degree of skepticism.These are people who also have no medical knowledge. I have seen blatant falsehoods time and again.
Which is apparently why you get your information from comments on fake news sites and things you make up in your head. Neither of which are reliable sources.
LisaC,
We’re all getting our information from the same sites. Media people are not the best informed on medical matters, they play to people’s emotions and sensationalism. They have their own biases and agenda just as everyone else has. The people involved in disposing of loved ones are portrayed as this side of sainthood. They were so motivated by love and devotion. Could there have been other motivations that don’t fit the template? I’ve seen it too many times, and have always discovered there’s the REAL story behind the story.
Like I said, maintain a high degree of skepticism.
Hi ts,
Thank you. Too much about this situation just doesn’t pass the smell test.
Also, I would like a response about the gas chambers from these folks. If its speed and efficiency they want, this might be the way to go. Why should anyone be bothered by the fact they were used in German hospitals before and during the Nazi era?
“Well then you don’t really know the number of people polled or if it was scientific.” – I did say that.
“Do you think black people would be polled on whether they approve of segregation and inequality?” – it was your example, you tell me.
“A better way to kill the child. How about gas chambers like the ones that were in use in German hospitals prior to and during the Nazi era? The death camps weren’t the first to employ them.” – oh yawn. I should have realized it would be too optimistic of me to contemplate the possibility that you wouldn’t conflate two such universally divergent situations. Go on, tell us you have absolutely no knowledge whatsoever of how people in hospitals and hospices in the 21st century die. Despite your regular claims on what is and isn’t medically possible or feasible.
“5 doses of sleeping medication is excessive. This would indicate the patient is building a tolerance, requiring more and more. Maybe you should assess why someone isn’t sleeping normally.” – maybe you shouldn’t have ignored my answer. How big were the doses? What of?
“I was speaking generally. If a doctor of any sort doesn’t exercise good judgment dispensing drugs, the result is the same, intentional malice or not.” – uh huh.
“Well I guess rulings are a matter of perspective. I’m sure racists were thrilled with the segregation ruling.” – but not when folks of differing colors could wed.
“Well Reality, do you know if the doctors spoke in court? Yes what she said was brief.” – if you want to claim that a judge decided this case solely on a written request from the mother be my guest.
“But I suppose it doesn’t take long to ask for your child to be starved.” – and you’ll happily ignore the reasons the mother gave in her written submission won’t you.
“Good grief Reality, can’t you read? I simply made a statement about epilepsy and alcohol. I never said it had any relevance to the child.” – it was your attempt to belittle the possible seriousness in this particular case.
“I don’t know what the judge thought. Any idea what maladies people should be starved and dehydrated for?” – I’m not the medical team concerned, nor am I the judge. How about you?
“So Great Ormand was forced to starve and dehydrate this child whether they wanted to or not? Doctors and nurses are forced to violate their ethics? Do you have a problem with this?” – false construct.
“How do you know if she wanted to live or not?” – she wouldn’t know herself, she never developed more than a six month old child.
“Also, would you advocate the use of gas chambers in hospitals to dispose of children and adults like this, as we done in German hospitals prior to and during the Nazi era?” – if anything invokes Godwin’s Law this does. Shows your desperation.
Absolutely hippie, it’s high time the sanctimonious meddlers were put in their place. This could have been far more humanely done.
“Mary, you seem to have struck a nerve with the pro-death crowd” – LOL, oh yes, how do you figure that?
“Like I said, maintain a high degree of skepticism.” – Great Ormond Street and a judge did something you don’t like, that’s all.
“Too much about this situation just doesn’t pass the smell test.” – conspiracy theory 101.
“Also, I would like a response about the gas chambers from these folks. If its speed and efficiency they want, this might be the way to go. Why should anyone be bothered by the fact they were used in German hospitals before and during the Nazi era?” – Godwin’s Law AND feigned ignorance? Wow.
Reality,
Let’s just make this easy. How about the gas chambers of German hospitals before and during the Nazi era. Would you support these?
You want quickness and efficiency, and I think this would be the way to go. What do you think? Also, under what circumstances would you want people gassed? How severe the disability?
Also, since you said the Great Ormand had no choice, that means doctors and nurses may well be forced to violate their ethics. Maybe not all of them, but likely some of them. Do you agree that doctors and nurses must be forced to violate their ethics? Do you agree hospitals should have a choice?
You’ve already made it easy Mary. Your extreme and self-blinkered approach to what took place has done that. No one’s saying you have to like or agree with the events, but that doesn’t mean you have to undertake some extraordinarily fantastic journey into imaginary constructs.
So you are going to double down on the Godwin’s Law/feigned ignorance bit are you? Fair enough, it’s up to you.
“since you said the Great Ormand had no choice” – I only said they had no choice as to the method they could employ, nothing else. Stop making stuff up.
He made his decision based on the mother’s request only?
Reality, your posts would be much more comprehensible if you visually distinguished between your own words and what you are quoting. You can put quotations in italics by putting an i and an /i within the lesser than/greater than brackets at the beginning and end of the quote.
Also, the judge was a she.
Well Reality, do you know if the doctors spoke in court
According to the Mirror the child’s doctors supported the parents (both parents made the request, not just the mother) and the hospital rather than the parents actually brought the case to court. We don’t know, of course, whether the doctors conveyed information to the court orally, in writing, or by pantomime.
We’re all getting our information from the same sites
Not really. Most of your input here appears to be informed by little but other comments on this blog and your own imagination.
Media people are not the best informed on medical matters, they play to people’s emotions and sensationalism.
Based on the mother’s most recent Facebook post, it would appear that the media was not fully conveying how close to death the girl was. According to the Facebook post, she could no longer be fed intravenously due to organ failure and sepsis; if so, it’s splitting hairs to say that she was not suffering from a terminal illness.
Also, I would like a response about the gas chambers from these folks.
Your gibbering about gas chambers doesn’t really warrant a response.
an i and an /i within the lesser than/greater than brackets at the beginning and end of the quote.
So {i} and {/i} but with the greater/lesser symbols. They don’t show up on the screen if I try to show an example.
like this Lisa?
there used to be boxes which allowed one to select italics, bold etc.
LisaC,
In fact I checked various sources. But again who knows who’s sources are more accurate. I’m wary of all of them.
If she was in fact suffering organ failure and sepsis that could not be reversed, then no court order would have been necessary. Comfort care by hospice would have been acceptable and ethical. All the more reason I am not inclined to believe this mother.
Well you see Reality and some others talk about making death quick and painless. They also suggest certain lives aren’t worth living. What better way to dispose of them?
Reality,
You’re the one who keeps arguing for a swift and painless death.
What better way than gas chambers to dispose of the likes of this child? Why is this any worse than starvation and dehydration? If anything you would seem to consider this preferable.
No, you said it wasn’t their choice. You weren’t specific. Well, then let’s give them the choice. Gas chamber or starvation.
Reality:
Yes, you’ve got it now.
Comfort care by hospice would have been acceptable and ethical.
That required giving her fluids, which meant she would suffer a very prolonged death by starvation rather than a less prolonged death by dehydration. I’d try to explain why they couldn’t ease her suffering in hospice, but if you haven’t mastered that issue by now, you’re never going to.
Given that you have demonstrated some medical knowledge over time Mary, the fact that you would leap to ‘nazi death chambers’ rather than the forms which have been in use for some decades now says everything.
No, you said it wasn’t their choice. You weren’t specific. – how very disingenuous of you. You asked – So you trust a hospital that would starve and dehydrate a child for two weeks, subjecting her to a death you describe as slow and painful. – to which I replied “it wasn’t their choice.”
This followed my earlier response in the same comment to your question Well, I would have my reservations about the Great Ormand Street. They did starve and dehydrate a child for two weeks. – my response was “as it was the only method permitted”
So not only is your accusation mistaken, your comment Well, then let’s give them the choice. Gas chamber or starvation. demonstrates yet again your hyperbolic approach.
LisaC,
Speaking of mastering issues let me explain hospice, about which you seem to have little understanding. It provides comfort care to terminally ill patients based on their individualized needs. Likely they would have provided oral fluids as tolerated to ease her thirst and would not force food on her, but feed her if she was hungry and as she could tolerate. She would not be deliberately starved and dehydrated. If in fact she was septic and in organ failure this would not keep her alive, just comfortable. If she had no desire for either, it wouldn’t be forced.
Reality,
You’re the one that wants a quick and painless death. What’s your problem with a gas chamber? Because the Nazis used them? Is it a little troubling for you to think who has shared your mentality toward the disabled?
Exactly Reality, it could have been interpreted that it wasn’t their choice to kill the child.
Not at all. You say they had no other option than to starve the child. I say why not use a gas chamber? Its certainly quicker, and that’s what you advocate. Also it can be used time and again and dispose of several disabled people at the same time.
You’re the one that wants a quick and painless death. – I do, and you keep expressing a desire for it to be prolonged.
What’s your problem with a gas chamber? Because the Nazis used them? – look, if you want to keep doubling down on the Godwin’s Law/feigned ignorance stuff, keep on keeping on :-)
Is it a little troubling for you to think who has shared your mentality toward the disabled? – firstly, you have no idea of my mentality towards the disabled. Secondly, given the thinking that you are demonstrating, I’d be more troubled if I shared yours.
Exactly Reality, it could have been interpreted that it wasn’t their choice to kill the child. – only if very little intelligence is brought to bear.
Not at all. You say they had no other option than to starve the child. I say why not use a gas chamber? Its certainly quicker, and that’s what you advocate. Also it can be used time and again and dispose of several disabled people at the same time. – yes totally. It was the only method they were permitted to use, and you know that. There are much better methods than gas chambers, and you know that too. There is also nothing which warrants your unrelated inveigling of disposing of multiple disabled folk collectively. Care to double down on your doubling down on the whole Godwin’s Law/feigned ignorance thing? Pretty please?
Reality,
Is there some reason you don’t want to acknowledge you have advocated a swift death for Nancy. What objections you have to a gas chamber? Just think of all the children and adults like little Nancy you could dispose of, quickly and efficiently. Why stop with Nancy? She’s certainly not the first or last severely disabled person.
Come on Reality, there is nothing new about the mentality that a child like Nancy should have a quick and painless death. Kind of scary to think who has shared a similar belief as yours, isn’t it?
Is there some reason you don’t want to acknowledge you have advocated a swift death for Nancy. – I haven’t ‘advocated’ anything, why would you make such a claim? All I have stated is that if those responsible hadn’t been limited to starvation and dehydration it would have been better.
What objections you have to a gas chamber? – there are better methods, widely used for some years now. As you well know. Your reason for throwing in gas chambers is both fanciful and obvious.
Just think of all the children and adults like little Nancy you could dispose of, quickly and efficiently. Why stop with Nancy? She’s certainly not the first or last severely disabled person. – since when did this become about the pro’s and con’s of terminating or not terminating the disabled? This was about the reduction in suffering of a dying child.
Oh well, at least my ‘pretty please’ worked :-)
Come on Reality, there is nothing new about the mentality that a child like Nancy should have a quick and painless death. – nothing new by the rational and compassionate, no.
Kind of scary to think who has shared a similar belief as yours, isn’t it? – not in the least, because it’s not what you wish you could allude to.
So, from a story about the attempt to reduce the suffering of one dying child by that one child’s loving mother and one of the best hospitals around, using the correct legal process; you’ve done everything you can to twist it into some sort of malicious, malevolent crusade against all disabled people, including putting them in nazi gas chambers, Well done you!
would not force food on her, but feed her if she was hungry and as she could tolerate
Mary, if you know anyone, anyone at all who has a passing familiarity with the practice of medicine, maybe you could ask them why medical professionals don’t just nourish someone who can’t be fed intravenously by giving them food when they’re hungry.
You might also ask them whether moving into hospice care gives morphine-resistant patients access to new, effective drugs, or leaves them seeking relief from the same drugs that no longer offer them relief.
LisaC,
If you had any passing familiarity with medicine you would know that hospice care is tailored to the needs of the patient. A patient may desire food or they may find it revolting. If a patient wants to eat, they do. If they don’t, it isn’t forced. Same with fluids.
Why don’t medical professionals not feed a person when they’re hungry? If the terminal patient can safely eat, they will. If they desire to eat, they will. Food isn’t forced.
Hospice care may well give patients access to stronger medications under medical supervision. The goal is pain relief. Its not unusual for terminal patients to require higher doses. Pain relief will also be tailored to their needs. Morphine drips, which are quite potent, are used. Even the patient with a high tolerance will get relief, or at least be heavily sedated.
40 years ago my friend’s father used medical marijuana for tracheal cancer. It was the only thing to offer the poor man any relief and he was able to legally use it. If it works, you get no argument from me.
Reality,
You don’t advocate a quick death, it just would have been better than starving. You sort of contradict yourself Reality.
What better methods than the gas chamber? Of course you don’t advocate a quick death, I forgot.
The “reduction in suffering of a child”. Why don’t you just call it the deliberate starving and dehydrating of a child?
Nothing new by the “rational and compassionate”. I’m sure those gas chambers were run by people who considered themselves “rational and compassionate”.
Not what I wish I could allude to??
Oh yes, a “loving mother” who calls her child a “little f—–” on social media. “Reduce the suffering” of one “dying” child who if she was dying could have had ethical and truly compassionate care from hospice with no need to go to court. The “correct legal process” by the decision of one judge. One of the best hospitals around? A hospital that deliberately starves and dehydrates a patient? Oh that’s right, starving was their only option. They had no other choice. So maybe a gas chamber would be preferable?
Its only those Nazi barbarians that did things like that, certainly not civilized human beings like us, right Reality?
Firing squads are fairly quick, I believe. And they reduce suffering to zero.
Make sure you enlist the guys that have good aim though.
Or are you thinking of having an open casket, Mrs. Loving Fitzmaurice?
You don’t advocate a quick death, it just would have been better than starving. You sort of contradict yourself Reality. – no.
What better methods than the gas chamber? – this is a question born of Godwin’s Law/feigned ignorance. I’m happy for you to compound it. Do it again.
Of course you don’t advocate a quick death, I forgot. – no, you imagined.
The “reduction in suffering of a child”. Why don’t you just call it the deliberate starving and dehydrating of a child? – so you still advocate prolonged suffering.
Nothing new by the “rational and compassionate”. I’m sure those gas chambers were run by people who considered themselves “rational and compassionate”. – if you want to think the nazis were rational and compassionate go for it.
Not what I wish I could allude to?? – that is what I said.
Oh yes, a “loving mother” who calls her child a “little f—–” on social media. “Reduce the suffering” of one “dying” child who if she was dying could have had ethical and truly compassionate care from hospice with no need to go to court. – I don’t see how prolonging her suffering in a hospice rather than a hospital would have helped. She had the best medical help available and everything went through an ethics committee.
The “correct legal process” by the decision of one judge. One of the best hospitals around? A hospital that deliberately starves and dehydrates a patient? – yes I know you’d rather her suffering has been prolonged.
Oh that’s right, starving was their only option. They had no other choice. – heck, how many more times do you need the information before it sinks in!
So maybe a gas chamber would be preferable? – are you trying for a Godwin’s Law world record or something? We might need to gather some stats and correlate some data so you’ll know how you’re doing.
Its only those Nazi barbarians that did things like that, certainly not civilized human beings like us, right Reality? – hey you’re the one advocating for the use of gas chambers on the disabled community, not me.
Perhaps you should ask Rick Perry Praxedes?
If a child quits being angelic when she cries out, parents quit being loving when they starve her to death.
Children are not angels.
And parents should not be devils.
If a child quits being angelic when she cries out – except that’s not what happened.
Children are not angels. – whilst being angels is a factual impossibility, on an emotive level some of us consider ours to be so :-)
And parents should not be devils – putting aside the factual impossibility of that; on an emotive level, no they shouldn’t be. Thankfully, such was not the case here.
What an absolute barbaric way for this child to die. Would an owner be allowed to dispose of a dog or horse this way?
Hell to the no!
The West has lost its moral compass. I need a kinder, gentler place to live . . .
Reality,
I have yet to hear you condemn this child’s death, only express regret that it wasn’t done in a quicker and less painful way. You have even asked me time and again what I preferred, a slow death or a short one. I have repeatedly told you I preferred none at all, which by your twisted logic, means I prefer a long drawn out one.
Then I suggest a gas chamber, as was used by the doctors, hospitals, and institutions of pre Nazi Germany, and was certainly not stopped by the Nazis when they came to power. Well Reality, these people thought just like you. Don’t condemn the killing, just make it quick.
Do you think there is only one child like Nancy? Do you think judges won’t be asked to rubber stamp more requests to kill the disabled? Why should their lives be any more important than Nancy’s? Also, why should they suffer the slow and painful death you seem to abhor, though you seem to have no problem with the killing itself. The intellectuals of pre Nazi Germany, also considered themselves motivated by rational thinking and compassion, as do you. The gas chambers were quick and efficient. Or is there something about this even you find repugnant Reality? We’re just far too civilized for that,right? Well, by a judge sentencing an innocent child to a terrible death on the request of her mother, the first step has been taken. What happens when there are several requests, and several more? Maybe the gas chamber will be the best way to go.
Hi phillymiss,
AMEN.
Looks like everything old is new again:
http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=14-10-030-f
Would an owner be allowed to dispose of a dog or horse this way? Hell to the no! – I couldn’t agree more. So what do we need to do to ensure humans can die as humanely as animals?
I have yet to hear you condemn this child’s death – it’s kinda hard to condemn the inevitable.
only express regret that it wasn’t done in a quicker and less painful way – as phillymiss has expressed.
You have even asked me time and again what I preferred, a slow death or a short one. I have repeatedly told you I preferred none at all, which by your twisted logic, means I prefer a long drawn out one. – you may have preferred ‘no death’ but it wasn’t possible. So there was a choice, despite your twisted logic.
Then I suggest a gas chamber, as was used by the doctors, hospitals, and institutions of pre Nazi Germany, and was certainly not stopped by the Nazis when they came to power. – which is a totally ludicrous analogy, just like when it’s tried on in regards to abortion.
Please list the doctors, hospitals and institutions of pre Nazi Germany which did as you claim.
Well Reality, these people thought just like you. Don’t condemn the killing, just make it quick. – what complete tosh. The comparison is utterly invalid. If you are unable to see the vast chasm of difference between this child’s case and what the Nazis did then that speaks for itself.
Do you think there is only one child like Nancy? – no. And each case is different, is treated individually and on its merits, with a variety of outcomes. You know, absolutely nothing like what the nazis did.
Do you think judges won’t be asked to rubber stamp more requests to kill the disabled? – what’s that got to do with this case? What rubber stamping?
The intellectuals of pre Nazi Germany, – which ‘intellectuals of pre Nazi Germany’? What role did they play in what the nazis did?
also considered themselves motivated by rational thinking and compassion – did they? Your evidence for this?
as do you. – indeed I do apply rational thinking and compassion.
The gas chambers were quick and efficient. – and totally irrelevant to what takes place in cases such as this. As you well know.
Or is there something about this even you find repugnant Reality? – what I find repugnant is making a terminally ill child, or adult, suffer unduly.
We’re just far too civilized for that,right? – you appear intent on not being so.
Well, by a judge sentencing an innocent child to a terrible death on the request of her mother, – that’s not what happened at all. Why do you keep making this stuff up?
What happens when there are several requests, and several more? Maybe the gas chamber will be the best way to go. – so, you really want to be known as someone who cannot differentiate between two diametrically opposed situations?
I think you’re becoming a Godwin’s Law champion.
Reality,
phillymiss expressed revulsion at the terrible way this child was put to death. That does not suggest she supports the child’s killing.
I do hope your read my link Reality. You will find the perpetrators of this monstrous act, the killing of disabled children and adults, were not Nazi brownshirt thugs, but rather professors, doctors, judges, and intellectuals who all prided themselves on being rational and compassionate. It also started out gradually. It was judges who would rubber stamp a death request from parents, it was propaganda as to the uselessness and misery of those with physical and mental challenges. It was an existing bias against the disabled, much like what we see in our own society.
The Germans certainly didn’t consider themselves barbarians. Just like people today who advocate the killing of the disabled, Peter Singer for example, do not consider themselves to be.
Looks like there has been some cause for concern in England already. As I said things begin very gradually.
http://centurean2.wordpress.com/2011/03/03/exploring-euthenasia-government-destruction-of-the-nhs/
Phillymiss said it was “an absolute barbaric way for this child to die.” – I agreed. She went on to say “would an owner be allowed to dispose of a dog or horse this way?” – to which the answer is no. Therefore I asked what we need to do to ensure humans can die as humanely as animals.
I do hope your read my link Reality. – indeed I did.
Despite being an anti-all-the-usual-stuff site with a clear agenda, it makes interesting reading, despite contradicting your claims.
What it tells us is that some intellectuals prior to and during the nazi era spoke and wrote of it. None of them acted on it. Hitler was the one who started acting on it, during the nazi era, not the intellectuals.
Where did it mention judges in relation to killing? Did I miss that bit? Is it there?
Hitler conducted the propaganda.
It was judges who would rubber stamp a death request from parents, – show me where it said this.
It was an existing bias against the disabled, much like what we see in our own society. – says who?
The Germans certainly didn’t consider themselves barbarians. – how do you know?
Just like people today who advocate the killing of the disabled, Peter Singer for example, do not consider themselves to be. – what evidence is there that they are?
As I said, it was interesting. But removal of the disabled from society during the Nazi era has nothing to do with this young girl’s case. It’s completely removed.
Looks like there has been some cause for concern in England already – dear me, right wing politicians and health care. Will it ever change.
Some years back I became very sick and ended up in the hospital. It was the sickest I have ever been. I was running high fevers and hurt everywhere. I dropped over and my husband called the ambulance. I could not stand up without assistance. I had recently miscarried so the hospital’s focus was in the area of my reproductive system thinking I had some sort of infection.
I kept getting worse and I felt as though I was dying. I did not want to be poked and prodded but wanted to be left alone. When my husband came near me, I expressed wanting to die. What if someone had offered me kill pills while I was in this state? Looking back, I can’t believe that I said those things and felt that terrible. My husband still talks about how sad it was to see me in that much pain.
As it turned out, I had pneumonia and my lungs were filled with fluid. A day or so after getting on the right medications, I felt so much better.
Anyway, no one would have had the right to kill me by any method, slow or fast, based on my pain level. Even if I was underage or disabled. Even if I requested death.
We are here to help each other through the painful times in life, physical and otherwise, not kill each other or ask others to help kill ourselves.
Absolutely NO ONE knows what condition this sweet girl would be in today if she had not been starved/dehydrated to death. She was not a little f*cker but was a human being who deserved to live.
Stop encouraging others to kill themselves and the innocents among us.
Reality,
Everything begins as talk and an idea. Eugenics and then advocating the disposal of humans supposedly devoid of value. German eugenicists even came to the United States to seek inspiration. The eugenics movement was certainly not confined to Germany. These intellectuals consisted of doctors, judges, and professors, to name a few.
By 1930, before Hitler, German asylums and state hospitals saw a sharp cut in funding. People resented money spent on the disabled during such difficult economic times and apparently didn’t concern themselves with the resulting squalor, disease, starvation and death that resulted.
Racial purity laws were gradually passed as Hitler took power. By 1938 relatives were flocking to officials appointed by Hitler, to request euthanasia of handicapped children. Whether these were judges in the sense that we think of judges, they were officials with the job of “rubber stamping” applications. They would be the judges of these children’s fates.
Doctors and nurses, most not Nazis themselves, enthusiastically and voluntarily took part in the euthanasia program. Initially children were killed by injection. Better than starvation, right Reality? Then carbon monoxide poisoning was deemed more efficient for adults and children. Once the efficiency of this method was determined, it was standardized and was utilized at other institutions.
German judges were tried in Nuremburg for implementing Hitler’s eugenic and racial purity laws.
As for the article on England, perhaps it explains why it was so easy to condemn Nancy to die.
I expressed wanting to die. What if someone had offered me kill pills while I was in this state? – are you not aware of the checks and balances in place?
Absolutely NO ONE knows what condition this sweet girl would be in today if she had not been starved/dehydrated to death. – she would be dead.
Stop encouraging others to kill themselves and the innocents among us. – I’ve done no such thing.
LOL. Sounds like someone believes I am talking with/to him/her. I’m worried s/he may be in the middle stages of dementia.
Absolutely NO ONE knows what condition this sweet girl would be in today if she had not been starved/dehydrated to death.
Mary, thanks so much for your informative posts! I learn so much from them and can share them with others.
Hm, yes, interesting Mary. Still doesn’t support your earlier claims.
By 1938 relatives were flocking to officials appointed by Hitler, to request euthanasia of handicapped children. Whether these were judges in the sense that we think of judges, they were officials with the job of “rubber stamping” applications. – what evidence do you have of this?
Doctors and nurses, most not Nazis themselves, enthusiastically and voluntarily took part in the euthanasia program. – evidence?
Initially children were killed by injection. Better than starvation, right Reality? – less traumatic, yes.
Then carbon monoxide poisoning was deemed more efficient for adults and children. Once the efficiency of this method was determined, it was standardized and was utilized at other institutions. – in the 1930’s. For a Nazi driven program. Nothing to do with individual cases in the 21st century.
German judges were tried in Nuremburg for implementing Hitler’s eugenic and racial purity laws. – understandable given it ran nothing like individual cases being dealt with on their own merits nowadays.
As I said, it was interesting. But removal of the disabled from society during the Nazi era has nothing to do with this young girl’s case. It’s completely removed. So thanks for the history lesson but where’s the relevance.
As for the article on England, perhaps it explains why it was so easy to condemn Nancy to die. – the reasons were given. The typical right wing politicians approach to health care wasn’t one of them.
Why write what you did if you didn’t want anybody to respond then Praxedes? What were you saying about dementia? Especially when you end with an accusation. It’s nice to hear you didn’t mean me in that regard though ;-)
Absolutely NO ONE knows what condition this sweet girl would be in today if she had not been starved/dehydrated to death. – so you didn’t read the article either?
Mary, thanks so much for your informative posts! I learn so much from them and can share them with others.
– yeah, I enjoy sharing Mary’s ‘informative posts’ too!
Mary, Your posts led me to the story of little Gerhard Kretschmar. His father called him “this monster.” It reminded me of Nancy being called a “little f*cker” by her own mother.
Sounds like the Nazis started out with the “incurably ill” and kept killing from there. Nancy wasn’t even terminal but was killed. I read an article the other day that Nancy’s parents were separated but are now back together. We don’t hear too much about good ole daddy.
Reality,
Do a little research. You might actually learn something.
A Nazi driven program? So jack booted thugs ran these euthenasia centers? Parents were forced to request the euthenasia of their children? That’s what’s scary Reality, they didn’t and they weren’t. Had Nancy’s mother lived then, she would have done what she did now. Go to an official who represents the state, who would do what the English judge did, review her request and give permission.
Oh of course we’re different, right? They were thugs and barbarians, we are civilized human beings. Nooo similarities between us and them. Remember that even Hitler understood full blown euthenasia had to be introduced slowly, the public had to be “softened up” first.
I can remember when abortion was legalized. Never in a million years would anyone think there be late term abortions, sex selection abortions, or partial term abortions. Noooooo. Abortion would be the very last resort of a desperate woman. I remember in the late 70s reading an article in a woman’s magazine, McCall’s, expressing concern for repeat abortions. Goodness, that wasn’t supposed to happen! How can this be? Now its just a given.
Oh sure Reality, its the fault of “right wing” politicians.
Hi Prax,
Actually the seed was long planted. This idea of “purifying” the race was not invented by the Nazis. They certainly exploited it, but as I said, parents were not forced to request the killing of their children and doctors and nurses, certainly not all but enough, willingly complied.
From my research, the first child approved for killing was Baby K, who was born with deformities. Like Nancy’s mother his father requested his son be put to death, or I should say “sleep”. “Sleep” and “allowed to die” do sound so much nicer. After this Hitler permitted euthenasia of other children like him. Again no one was forced to comply. No one was doing anything illegal. It was the physically and mentally defective who were first targeted, people who were not sick and dying, and just went downhill from there.
If a patient wants to eat, they do. If they don’t, it isn’t forced. Same with fluids. Why don’t medical professionals not feed a person when they’re hungry? If the terminal patient can safely eat, they will. If they desire to eat, they will. Food isn’t forced.
Your argument about hospice nutrition is relevant only if Nancy was physically capable of eating food when she wanted to eat. Before her death she been fed intravenously until that method of nutrition could not be continued due to organ failure and sepsis. Is your theory that she was perfectly capable of eating but the hospital chose to feed her intravenously instead? And that, therefore, she was perfectly capable of returning to eating food normally but the hospital chose not to feed her? If you know anyone, anyone at all with medical knowledge, you might ask them whether that’s likely.
Morphine drips, which are quite potent, are used.
So, more of the same medication she had a resistance to.
Why would Nancy’s mom petition the court to withhold sustenance if Nancy couldn’t eat by either means, LisaC? There would be no reason to.
Research? How about you actually read the article you linked to!
A Nazi driven program? – that’s what it said.
So jack booted thugs ran these euthenasia centers? – why do you ask?
Parents were forced to request the euthenasia of their children? That’s what’s scary Reality, they didn’t and they weren’t. – if that’s the case why did you say By 1938 relatives were flocking to officials appointed by Hitler, to request euthanasia of handicapped children. – which is it?
Had Nancy’s mother lived then, she would have done what she did now. Go to an official who represents the state, who would do what the English judge did, review her request and give permission. – you can’t know that. Nancy probably would have died much closer to birth in those times anyway.
Oh of course we’re different, right? They were thugs and barbarians, we are civilized human beings. Nooo similarities between us and them. Remember that even Hitler understood full blown euthenasia had to be introduced slowly, the public had to be “softened up” first. – and? What’s that got to do with now? Or this case? Why keep waffling on about what the nazis did when it’s totally irrelevant to what took place here?
I can remember when abortion was legalized. Never in a million years would anyone think there be late term abortions, sex selection abortions, or partial term abortions. Noooooo. Abortion would be the very last resort of a desperate woman. – times change. Science, medicine and technology advance.
I remember in the late 70s reading an article in a woman’s magazine, McCall’s, expressing concern for repeat abortions. Goodness, that wasn’t supposed to happen! How can this be? Now its just a given. – who said it wasn’t supposed to happen? You?
Oh sure Reality, its the fault of “right wing” politicians. – you’re the one who provided the article stating what the Conservatives are planning to do, not me.
Some interesting history on the Eugenics movement. The Nazis certainly didn’t invent it and their actions were inspired and supported by eugenicists. So you see Reality, it wasn’t the Nazis who introduced this philosophy, only carried it out to its conclusion. That helps explain the dcotors and nurses who so willingly euthenized children and eventually adults, the officials who rubber stamped the applications to euthenize children, and the judges who would eventually stand trial at Nuremburg for enforcing “racial purity” policies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics_in_the_United_States
Maybe you can explain the difference between the judge in England who ordered a child to be starved and dehydrated, and an official in Nazi Germany who ordered a child to be given a lethal injection.
LisaC,
If Nancy was unable to tolerate nutrition and fluid, it wouldn’t be given to her. One is not fed intravenious, she’d be fed with a feeding tube into her stomach. Hospice staff would monitor her tolerance. If she was becoming ill, bloating, developing GI symptoms, the feedings would be decreased or stopped. Fluids as well, if they only caused swelling and dangerous fluid retention.
She wasn’t “resistant” to morphine,she had developed a tolerance. Why she was even given such large doses of pain killing meds is beyond me. Let’s just say someone needs to point it out as I cannot find a reason. Also, there are nerve blocks, which many terminal patients choose to relieve pain. Not all terminal patients are in pain. If in organ failure and sepsis your life span will be very brief, and most likely unresponsive or barely responsive. I can’t see where pain meds would even be necessary.
Great point Prax,
If Nancy was terminal and unable to tolerate nutrition in any way, why petition the court? She could have hospice care at home. Most patients do.
So you see Reality, it wasn’t the Nazis who introduced this philosophy, only carried it out to its conclusion. – so what? What’s that got to do with this case. Why can’t you answer the question?
That helps explain the dcotors and nurses who so willingly euthenized children and eventually adults, the officials who rubber stamped the applications to euthenize children, and the judges who would eventually stand trial at Nuremburg for enforcing “racial purity” policies. – I’m still waiting for any evidence you may have for this. Don’t you have it? You’re not even consistent.
Maybe you can explain the difference between the judge in England who ordered a child to be starved and dehydrated, and an official in Nazi Germany who ordered a child to be given a lethal injection. – don’t tell me you still haven’t read the article you cited!
She could have hospice care at home. Most patients do. – you know all about the British medical system do you?
there are nerve blocks, which many terminal patients choose to relieve pain. – wonderful. What about the patients they may not work for?
Not all terminal patients are in pain. – that’s nice if it happens. It didn’t here.
If in organ failure and sepsis your life span will be very brief, and most likely unresponsive or barely responsive. – so now you do acknowledge she was terminal.
I can’t see where pain meds would even be necessary. – what, ‘you’re gonna die anyway so why bother with pain relief’? Charming.
Why would Nancy’s mom petition the court to withhold sustenance if Nancy couldn’t eat by either means, LisaC?
Could you please quote the source that says the petition was to withhold sustenance? The articles above say fluids.
Why she was even given such large doses of pain killing meds is beyond me.
To kill pain. Please see the mother’s Facebook page for further details. She could no longer be fed through a tube to her digestive system because her intestine had shut down.
Not all terminal patients are in pain.
I’d say that is probably not much comfort to terminal patients who are in pain, but since you’re convinced that you alone can decide who is in pain and how pain can be treated, someone should tell those patients to just buck up and die faster if they don’t want to suffer.
Reality,
My point is that it wasn’t maniacal Nazis who invented eugenics, or even carried it out, it was a long established, and respected, movement, consisting of intellectuals, doctors, professors, judges, etc.
The very people who helped Hitler with his “race purification” program. The very people you seem to think can be trusted to make only the best decisions when it comes to children like Nancy.
However, you see history repeating itself. The state sanctioning the killing of a child at the parent’s request.
Tell me, what is the difference between the Nazi German official and the English judge both ruling in favor of killing a child
at a parent’s request? How is one any different from the other.
The British medical system? Yes from that article I read it looks pretty scary. Don’t they have the hospice care like we have in the United States? I hope so, its a wonderful service.
Don’t know much about nerve blocks do you Reality? They greatly reduce pain and the need for medication. They may still need to be medicated, but not to oblivion. They can function, settle their affairs, spend time with loved ones. Can all patients get them? No. Then by all means give the patient whatever is necessary to keep them comfortable.
Reality, not all terminal conditions are painful. Stoke, brain injury, heart conditions, and MS may be some examples. Hospice care also provides comfort care and assistance to the family. Too bad you don’t have it in England.
No I don’t acknowledge she was terminal. I said “if”. I seriously question how someone in organ failure and sepsis lived two weeks, and then only died because nutrition was withheld.
Again Reality, in sepsis and organ failure, the patient won’t need pain relief. Its more likely they won’t even be responsive.
LisaC,
None of the conditions you posted would require massive doses of pain meds. Also, when a patient is in such pain, an assessment and alternative treatments, such as nerve blocks, are looked into. No doctor should be drugging a patient without determining exactly what is causing their pain.
I pointed out conditions to Reality that would not require pain relief, but comfort care and family support. Absolutely everything necessary must be done to keep a patient pain free, and you seek the best way to do this. Blocks are a good alternative for reasons I explained to Reality. If a patient is not a candidate, other medications can be considered.
Deliberate starvation and dehydration of the patient is not acceptable care. Care is adjusted to the needs of the patient, and that includes food and fluid intake.
LisaC, the fact this mother had to get a court order should be a huge red flag to you. If this child was terminal, then there was no need to. Care to provide comfort is acceptable and requires no court order. I would also urge you to read my link in my 9:01PM post of Nov.3. Makes me suspect that court sanctioned killing of the disabled is just the next step.
The mother’s FB page? She can say anything she wants and portray herself any way she wants, and of course gets reinforcement, sympathy, and admiration. How nice to get so much attention. Hey lady, what about your dead child? Again, I would be a little skeptical of a mother her calls her child a “little f—–” on social media.
“Could you please quote the source that says the petition was to withhold sustenance? The articles above say fluids.”
How long would you live if fluids were withheld from you?
My point is that it wasn’t maniacal Nazis who invented eugenics, or even carried it out, it was a long established, and respected, movement, consisting of intellectuals, doctors, professors, judges, etc. – so what? What’s that got to do with this case. Why can’t you answer the question? Why won’t you answer the question.
The very people who helped Hitler with his “race purification” program. – not according to the article you linked to.
The very people you seem to think can be trusted to make only the best decisions when it comes to children like Nancy. – yet they’re not the same people. Nor was Nancy’s case one of a central plan by the political leaders to carry out a program
However, you see history repeating itself. The state sanctioning the killing of a child at the parent’s request. – unlike what the article you linked to told us. You really should have read it before serving it up.
Tell me, what is the difference between the Nazi German official and the English judge both ruling in favor of killing a child at a parent’s request? How is one any different from the other. – how about the fact that that’s not what happened in Nazi Germany.
The British medical system? Yes from that article I read it looks pretty scary. Don’t they have the hospice care like we have in the United States? I hope so, its a wonderful service. – no, what looks scary is what a Conservative government plans to do.
Don’t know much about nerve blocks do you Reality? – neither do you apparently.
They greatly reduce pain and the need for medication. They may still need to be medicated, but not to oblivion. They can function, settle their affairs, spend time with loved ones. – except when they don’t work.
Can all patients get them? No. Then by all means give the patient whatever is necessary to keep them comfortable. – and yet you said…..
Reality, not all terminal conditions are painful. Stoke, brain injury, heart conditions, and MS may be some examples. Hospice care also provides comfort care and assistance to the family. – so you’re declaring that because there are times when conditions may not be painful Nancy wasn’t feeling any pain? Seriously?
Too bad you don’t have it in England. – I’m not in England. Quite obviously neither are you.
No I don’t acknowledge she was terminal. I said “if”. I seriously question how someone in organ failure and sepsis lived two weeks, and then only died because nutrition was withheld. – of course you don’t, the facts are inconvenient for you.
Again Reality, in sepsis and organ failure, the patient won’t need pain relief. Its more likely they won’t even be responsive. – wow! How unbelievably cruel.
Reality,
I think its obvious I’ve answered your question, time and again. The handicapped are not condemned to death because of evil fanatics like Nazis, but rather by the the mentality that they are not fit for life, and its by the very people they should trust to protect them, such as the judicial system and the medical and nursing profession.
The article I posted mentioned the recruitment of doctors. Also that article isn’t the only information out there. Do some research, I had to, you’ll find many interesting articles on the cooperation willingly given by judges, doctors, and nurses.
Obviously it wasn’t the same people. But the very people Nancy should have trusted to protect her did not.
Uh yes Reality, its very much what happened in Nazi Germany. A child born defective, Baby K, was euthenized by German officials at the request of his father, who appealed directly to Hitler. What followed, pointed out in the article, was the euthenasia of thousands of children. Check under the “Death and Deceit” heading in my link. Now please, tell me the difference between the actions the German official in this case and the English judge.
Oh I know plenty about nerve blocks, have helped administer more than my share. They offer pain relief in so many ways. In fact, I had one myself. Thankfully it was not for anything terminal.
If administered properly they will work, if not the patient can certainly make it known and it can either be repeated or other methods of pain relief offered.
If what you say is correct, that she was septic and in organ failure, I would say she would be unresponsive or nearly so. She would also die rather quickly. If septic there would be blood pressure drop and vasodilatation. I’ve seen these patients go downhill very rapidly. Its not a condition you waste any time treating and is quickly fatal. As for organ failure,think about it Reality, your heart, lungs, blood pressure, kidneys, liver, etc are shutting down. Do you really think you’re going to last very long?
FYI, you treat sepsis with vasopressors and antibiotics, not narcotics. Narcotics may cause even further BP drop and offers no therapeutic value.
Well there was some mention of the so called hospice care offered in England in my link. Rather frightening.
I’m going by what you said. That she was septic and organ failure. Do I question that? Yes.
If the patient is unresponsive and their organs are shutting down, why would they need pain meds? What is so “cruel” about pointing that out?
an assessment and alternative treatments, such as nerve blocks, are looked into. – ‘looked into’ doesn’t mean they’ll be suitable or effective.
No doctor should be drugging a patient without determining exactly what is causing their pain. – so if you don’t know exactly what the cause is you do nothing about it? I’m glad you’re not a doctor.
I pointed out conditions to Reality that would not require pain relief, – no you didn’t. You pointed out conditions that in some instances may not require pain relief.
Absolutely everything necessary must be done to keep a patient pain free, and you seek the best way to do this. – unless Mary disagrees.
Blocks are a good alternative for reasons I explained to Reality. – half-explained. You left out the bit about ‘when they work’.
Deliberate starvation and dehydration of the patient is not acceptable care. – says who?
Care is adjusted to the needs of the patient, and that includes food and fluid intake. – which is what they did.
LisaC, the fact this mother had to get a court order should be a huge red flag to you. If this child was terminal, then there was no need to. Care to provide comfort is acceptable and requires no court order. I would also urge you to read my link in my 9:01PM post of Nov.3. Makes me suspect that court sanctioned killing of the disabled is just the next step.
The mother’s FB page? She can say anything she wants and portray herself any way she wants, and of course gets reinforcement, sympathy, and admiration. How nice to get so much attention. Hey lady, what about your dead child? Again, I would be a little skeptical of a mother her calls her child a “little f—–” on social media.
– See more at: https://www.jillstanek.com/2014/10/mother-wins-kill-nonterminally-ill-disabled-daughter/#comments
Reality,
It doesn’t guarantee they would be suitable or effective, but you’d certainly give them a try. Patients can be given much relief and may even be able to function more normally. Heavily drugging a patient isn’t suitable or effective either. It may only mask symptoms that need treatment. I don’t think starving and dehydrating a patient is suitable or effective either, unless you just want to kill someone, then it is effective.
No you determine the cause. Let me give you an example. A co worker of mine complained of chronic pain down her right arm. Pinched nerve in the neck, right? Or so thought one of our doctors, who without any evaluation, injected a nerve block into her upper spine. Worked great…for a while. A real examination determined she had a spinal tumor. Thankfully it was effectively treated and she lived several years, but poking a needle around that tumor may have helped spread the cancer. It also masked symptoms and lost valuable time that could have cost her life. A good example of why it is critical to determine the cause of the patient’s pain and not “treat” based on assumptions.
Reality, take my word for it, those conditions I pointed out would not require pain relief. Also, I have made it very plain that I want to see a patient given the medication necessary to relieve pain. The fact remains not all terminal patients are in pain.
Yeah they “adjusted” her food and fluids. They starved and dehydrated her and it took two weeks.
The point of your link is what?
I think its obvious I’ve answered your question, time and again. The handicapped are not condemned to death because of evil fanatics like Nazis, but rather by the the mentality that they are not fit for life, – then why did you go on and on and on about what the Nazis did? It’s been utterly irrelevant
and its by the very people they should trust to protect them, such as the judicial system and the medical and nursing profession. – just because you don’t like the course taken doesn’t mean they can’t be trusted to make the best decision in each individual case. They were there, you weren’t.
The article I posted mentioned the recruitment of doctors. – Nazi operatives and a few doctors. The killing did not include intellectuals and judges as you claimed it had.
Also that article isn’t the only information out there. – where are they then?
Do some research, I had to, you’ll find many interesting articles on the cooperation willingly given by judges, doctors, and nurses. – so they say something different to the article you did link to do they? I doubt any research I might do would find what you claim to be the case.
Obviously it wasn’t the same people. But the very people Nancy should have trusted to protect her did not. – depends whose concept of protection applies. The prolonged, untreated, painful death that you advocate or something more humane.
Uh yes Reality, its very much what happened in Nazi Germany. A child born defective, Baby K, was euthenized by German officials at the request of his father, who appealed directly to Hitler. – link?
What followed, pointed out in the article, was the euthenasia of thousands of children. – ‘followed’? Baby K isn’t mentioned in the article. You keep saying the article says stuff which it simply doesn’t. Why is that?
Check under the “Death and Deceit” heading in my link. – and? What has that to do with the circumstances in Nancy’s situation?
Now please, tell me the difference between the actions the German official in this case and the English judge. – which german official? Hitler? Did David Cameron arrange Nancy’s death? No judges are mentioned in the ‘Death and Deceit’ section.
Oh I know plenty about nerve blocks, have helped administer more than my share. They offer pain relief in so many ways. In fact, I had one myself. Thankfully it was not for anything terminal. – good news for you but that doesn’t mean that they are always effective.
If administered properly they will work, if not the patient can certainly make it known and it can either be repeated or other methods of pain relief offered. – so now you admit that they may not always work. There is no 100% success rate even if administered properly.
If what you say is correct, that she was septic and in organ failure, I would say she would be unresponsive or nearly so. – ‘nearly so’, that does not mean she couldn’t experience pain.
She would also die rather quickly. If septic there would be blood pressure drop and vasodilatation. I’ve seen these patients go downhill very rapidly. – not every patient will respond or react according to ‘Mary’s textbook.’
Its not a condition you waste any time treating and is quickly fatal. As for organ failure,think about it Reality, your heart, lungs, blood pressure, kidneys, liver, etc are shutting down. Do you really think you’re going to last very long? how do you know her heart and lungs were shutting down?
FYI, you treat sepsis with vasopressors and antibiotics, not narcotics. Narcotics may cause even further BP drop and offers no therapeutic value. – still on the ‘you’re gonna die anyway so why would you want pain killers’ train I see.
Well there was some mention of the so called hospice care offered in England in my link. Rather frightening. – what, the stuff that hasn’t actually happened?
I’m going by what you said. – no you’re not. You’re going by what you wish were the case mixed with a bit of your experience. You can’t even speak accurately about the Touchstone article!
That she was septic and organ failure. Do I question that? Yes. – because it’s an inconvenient truth for you.
If the patient is unresponsive and their organs are shutting down, why would they need pain meds? What is so “cruel” about pointing that out? – and you keep claiming to know at least a bit about this stuff!
It doesn’t guarantee they would be suitable or effective, but you’d certainly give them a try. Patients can be given much relief and may even be able to function more normally. – great. And when they aren’t effective?
Heavily drugging a patient isn’t suitable or effective either. It may only mask symptoms that need treatment. – “may” being the operative word.
I don’t think starving and dehydrating a patient is suitable or effective either, unless you just want to kill someone, then it is effective. – and since the purpose here was to reduce her suffering, that is what took place. It was the only suitable and effective path available.
No you determine the cause. – I’m not the one making an uninformed diagnosis and stating the appropriate treatment!
Let me give you an example. A co worker of mine…..lost valuable time that could have cost her life. A good example of why it is critical to determine the cause of the patient’s pain and not “treat” based on assumptions. good job they didn’t then.
Reality, take my word for it, those conditions I pointed out would not require pain relief. – you expect me to take your word for it when you keep making up stuff that the article you linked to never said! You also have a barrow to push on this. You weren’t there. You do not have the relevant expertise. You keep raving on about utterly unrelated Nazi pogroms.
Also, I have made it very plain that I want to see a patient given the medication necessary to relieve pain. – yet you keep claiming it wasn’t needed here!
The fact remains not all terminal patients are in pain. – and many are.
Yeah they “adjusted” her food and fluids. They starved and dehydrated her and it took two weeks. – and you wanted it to take even longer.
The point of your link is what? – are you kidding? I copied your whole 9:56am comment, responded to the part I wanted to and forgot to delete the rest. Did you not recognize your own words? So it also included the link to this very thread. No wonder you keep mis-quoting the Touchstone article.
Realty,
Maybe I hope you’ll understand that the state condemning a child to die can set a dangerous precedent.
Well, let’s just say putting blind faith in the good intentions of the medical and legal profession has been known to be fatal.
Judges were tried at Nuremburg for enforcing “race purification” policies, which included killing. Doctors and nurses voluntarily and enthusiastically took part in euthenizing children and then adults.
http://www.history.ucsb.edu/faculty/marcuse/classes/33d/projects/euth/EuthanasiaNurses.htm
Check google. You shouldn’t have any difficulty finding sources.
The handicapped child referred to in the Death and Deceit section of my link was Child K, that is the infant who’s death was requested by the father.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_euthanasia_in_Nazi_Germany
The German officials were ordered to act. You don’t think Hitler did his own dirty work do you?
Reality, why do you keep arguing about blocks? You should be happy they exist and are an effective alternative when drugs are not as effective or a patient does not want to be drugged. Also its obvious you have no clue what you’re talking about when it comes to medical conditions and pain management, or when it is even necessary.
I said if she was in organ failure, which I believe LisaC said was posted on FB, that would involve her heart and lungs shutting down. Think about “organ failure” Reality, and you might figure it out.
Maybe I hope you’ll understand that the state condemning a child to die can set a dangerous precedent. – in cases such as Nazi Germany it may well. In cases like this it was an individual case treated on its own merits and it was more complex than just ‘the state condemning a child to die’.
Well, let’s just say putting blind faith in the good intentions of the medical and legal profession has been known to be fatal. – but still the best thing available.
Judges were tried at Nuremburg for enforcing “race purification” policies, which included killing. – which has absolutely zero to do with Nancy’s case.
Doctors and nurses voluntarily and enthusiastically took part in euthenizing children and then adults. – so you keep saying. I’m still waiting for any evidence of such.
Your first link is meant to mean what? Apart from the fact that most nurses weren’t actually enthusiastic volunteers. You keep providing information which does anything but support your case.
The handicapped child referred to in the Death and Deceit section of my link was Child K, that is the infant who’s death was requested by the father. – there is no evidence that such is the case. Particularly as your wiki link cannot verify who the child was or when it occurred or even if the request came from the father or the mother. Or even if it actually occurred. Did you even read it?
The German officials were ordered to act. You don’t think Hitler did his own dirty work do you? – yes, ‘german officials’, not the ‘intellectuals and judges’ as you claimed earlier.
Reality, why do you keep arguing about blocks? – because you persist in being misleading about them.
You should be happy they exist and are an effective alternative when drugs are not as effective or a patient does not want to be drugged. – I am happy, but I’m not silly enough to think, let alone claim, they are effective in every case.
Also its obvious you have no clue what you’re talking about when it comes to medical conditions and pain management, or when it is even necessary. – and you know less than you claim, particularly in relation to the specifics of individual cases you have nothing to do with. Also funny given that you can’t even accurately quote from the article that you provide LOL.
I said if she was in organ failure, which I believe LisaC said was posted on FB, that would involve her heart and lungs shutting down. – you do not know.
Think about “organ failure” Reality, and you might figure it out. – not using any information you’ve provided I won’t!
Reality,
Sure, so was the case of Child K. In both cases children were condemned to die by agents of the state.
Like I said Reality I won’t argue medical issues with you. Its obvious you have no idea what you’re talking about and much of what you do say amounts to little more than gibberish.
I gave you a link concerning the involvement of doctors and nurses in the euthanasia program. I also gave a wikipedia link concerning Child K. It states the parents submitted the request. It also states where and when it occured. Did YOU read the link?
Which ‘case of child K’ are you referring to? Was it in a gas chamber? Nancy wasn’t ‘condemned to die’.
Like I said Reality I won’t argue medical issues with you. – probably wise of you.
You have no idea what you’re talking about and much of what you do say amounts to little more than gibberish. – you have served up multiple bouts of nonsense. Rather than answer any questions you insist on compounding the fallacies.
I gave you a link concerning the involvement of doctors and nurses in the euthanasia program. – you did. Thank you. It obliterated your repeated claims of nurses being enthusiastic volunteers.
I also gave a wikipedia link concerning Child K. – indeed you did. Thank you. It confirmed that judges didn’t give the approvals.
It states the parents submitted the request. It also states where and when it occurred. – which of the three hearsay possibilities are your referring to? Two of them don’t even fit the timeline in the Touchstone article.
Did YOU read the link? – LOL, I think it’s obvious who did and who didn’t.
Go on, come up with some more links :-)
Reality,
Child K likely died of lethal injection. The gas chambers came later. Well, at least Child K died by what you consider to be a more humane method. Give the Nazis credit for that. What difference is it who gave the order? It was an official of the state, who at least official was more humane than the English judge. By your standards anyway.
Yes it is wise of me to realize I shouldn’t be arguing with you on medical issues when you obviously have no clue what you’re talking about.
Gladly,
http://www.reflectionsonnursingleadership.org/Pages/Vol31_3_Shields.aspx
The article states nurses were not forced to be involved in euthanizing patients. It was of their own choosing. No nurse was fired or punished for refusing, she was just moved to another part of the hospital or a different institution.
Again Reality, read the link. They are uncertain of the child’s identity and the exact date of the occurence, likely no records were kept, but it did happen sometime in 1938 or 1939.
Child K likely died of lethal injection. – ‘likely’? So sheer speculation on your behalf.
The gas chambers came later. – apparently so.
Well, at least Child K died by what you consider to be a more humane method. – you and I really have no idea.
Give the Nazis credit for that. What difference is it who gave the order? – it wasn’t a judge or intellectual as you kept claiming.
It was an official of the state, who at least official was more humane than the English judge. – you have no idea.
Yes it is wise of me to realize I shouldn’t be arguing with you on medical issues when you obviously have no clue what you’re talking about. – this from someone who thinks they know more about this case than the medical team involved at one of the world’s best hospitals! You’re the one who claimed blockers are infallible but she didn’t need pain treatment anyway and who would have prolonged her death.
The article states nurses were not forced to be involved in euthanizing patients. It was of their own choosing. No nurse was fired or punished for refusing, she was just moved to another part of the hospital or a different institution. – the article is very similar in content to the ones you linked earlier. Did you notice in this one where it said – “What was the role of nurses? Those who actively killed were few, and the majority did not know what was happening. Some thought they knew but were never sure, while others knew and objected. Still others knew and helped by holding hands, comforting people as they went to their deaths…..
Why did nurses become involved? Fascism has at its core an insidious undermining of individual rights. The individual is nothing; the state is always right, and obedience to the state is paramount.” – so it debunks your repeated claims that all the nurses involved were enthusiastic volunteers.
Again Reality, read the link. – I did. I read all of it, maybe you should try doing so. With all the links you provide.
They are uncertain of the child’s identity and the exact date of the occurence, likely no records were kept, but it did happen sometime in 1938 or 1939. – which means its not a whole lot more than an urban myth, especially since two of the possible scenarios belie the Touchstone claim.
How long would you live if fluids were withheld from you?
I understand why you wouldn’t want to waste time reading your own comments, but it is necessary to follow the thread of this conversation. Refer back to your post of Nov 4, 12:26 pm.
Again, I would be a little skeptical of a mother her calls her child a “little f—–” on social media
I’m a lot skeptical of someone claiming to be a medical professional who pontificates on appropriate treatments for a patient whose medical records she has never seen and levels accusations against real medical professionals based on nothing but her own ignorance of the details of the case.
I would also urge you to read my link in my 9:01PM post of Nov.3
Yes, I did read your post, which predicted an inevitable decline in patient care if the government carries through with a plan to take health care decisions out of the hands of government bureaucrats and instead puts that power in hands of family doctors and health care corporations. I figured that you probably hadn’t understood it.
but you’d certainly give them a try.
Well, a real medical professional would probably try to establish whether the patient had any contraindications first. But don’t let that stop you.
I said if she was in organ failure, which I believe LisaC said was posted on FB, that would involve her heart and lungs shutting down
The FB post referred specifically to failure of the liver and intestine (both of which are organs). Since you’ve been giving Google such a workout, check to see whether either of those conditions can last long enough for the patient to need pain medication before dying. Also try Googling “Group B Strep infection.”
No you determine the cause…A good example of why it is critical to determine the cause of the patient’s pain and not “treat” based on assumptions.
Are you back to claiming that no effort was made to diagnose Nancy’s problems? Look, it’s obvious that you won’t lift a finger to find any information about the girl’s medical conditions, but there’s no reason to believe that the actual medical professionals who treated her shared your attitude.
Can we just acknowledge the truth here? You could not care less about this child’s suffering, which is why you keep injecting into the conversation the entirely irrelevant statement that not all terminal patients suffer. You’re afraid of the Euthanizing Nazi Monster in your closet, and you’ve for whatever reason convinced yourself that the monster is real and incurable pain is not. That conviction requires you to deny the possibility that physicians who have treated the patient have made valid diagnoses and prognoses, and further requires you to remain willfully ignorant of the girl’s case so that you can make your own uninformed decisions on the issue. I sure as heck hope you’re not in the position to inflict your convictions on real suffering people.
Reality,
One source says lethal injection, another source says a dissolved luminal tablet that rendered him unconscious and then dead. Either way he was far more humane than the English judge, at least by your standards.
Patients would later be gassed with carbon monoxide, it was more efficient and quicker. Also less expensive.
Again what’s the difference? It was a state official. So a judge in England orders a child killed. The difference? Or are judges in England the equivalent of Nazi thugs?
Like I said, you obviously have no clue what you’re talking about when it comes to medical matters.
No it doesn’t debunk the claim at all Reality. The nurses were willing participants. They were not forced or threatened. Only a small minority took part, but nonetheless they willingly took part.
They viewed their work as compassionate.
Fascism was the cause? Well then why did only a small minority who were not forced take part? Why didn’t the vast majority? Did they not know what was going on, or did they just choose not to know?
“Children were given ever increasing doses of phenobarbital by nurses”. Sounds like they did more than just hold the victims’ hands.
There is some dispute over the child’s identity, and the date of the occurence, but no dispute over the actual occurence. Also records likely were not kept, and under these circumstances, parents would not be likely to tell siblings what actually happened to a baby brother/sister. So the sister who was interviewed may not know for certain if that was her sibling.
It wasn’t uncommon in this country for children not to know they had siblings in state institutions.
http://www.js.emory.edu/BLUMENTHAL/M%C3%BCller%20(MJ).htm
You will then have to click the “Blumenthal” link
History of how the judges, the majority of whom were Nazis, became subservient to Hitler, vowing personal loyalty to him.
“…since a legally valid decree existed from the Fuehrer {existed} for these measures, there could be no further reservations about carrying out the euthanasia project”
Suprisingly, this judge did challenge the Nazi government on its euthanasia program and lived to talk about it.
http://skepticism.org/timeline/july-history/7471-judge-kreyssig-objects-nazi-euthanasia-charges-philipp-bouhler-with-murder.html
LisaC,
So you have no problem with a mother who calls her disabled child a “little f*****” on social media.
Well LisaC, you should have read the link a little more closely. It made reference to euthanasia as practiced by the NHS. Is the judge’s ruling just an extension of state power that you seem to abhor and the result of people becoming more desensitized to euthanasia?
Where did I say patients are randomly given blocks? I even gave an example of how this can be very dangerous. Of course the patient is assessed and the source of pain determined. It is then decided if the patient is a candidate. If they are, blocks can be very effective.
If she is in liver failure her level of responsiveness is decreasing, eventually leading to coma. I have cared for such patients and they are not in pain. My father’s conditions deteriorated and he looked terrible, but he was not in pain. Also, with badly functioning livers narcotics may be very dangerous. While you’re doing some googling, check out how quickly a strep B infection can be fatal. I saw one young woman’s vital signs bottom out and require emergency life support measures, a half hour after arriving in the ER complaining of flu symptoms. She had a, you guessed it, Strep B infection and had become septic. She needed life support, not narcotics. A non functioning and septic bowel requires immediate surgery or the patient’s life will be endangered. These usually are painful but treatment does not consist of loading the patient with narcotics. Depending on their condition, it involves pain relief and immediate surgery as well as antibiotic therapy.
I could care less about the child’s suffering? You haven’t told me, and I can’t find, what specifically was causing her pain. Do I claim no effort was made? No. I’d like to know what they found.
Also, as I pointed out LisaC, it wasn’t “Nazi monsters” but the people you seem to put such blind trust in, the judiciary and the medical profession, who did the Nazi’s dirty work, and willingly.
It was the mentality that some lives aren’t worth living carried to its ultimate conclusion. A mentality, I’m sorry to say, that Americans inspired in the Germans long before the Nazis picked up on it. Lest we wave a sanctimonious finger at the Germans we should remember the forced sterilizations legally sanctioned in this country.
So you have no problem with a mother who calls her disabled child a “little f*****” on social media.
I don’t approve of it.
It made reference to euthanasia as practiced by the NHS.
Not exactly. It discussed withdrawal of nutrition from patients who are non-responsive and therefore, according to you, don’t need pain relief.
Do I claim no effort was made? No.
Actually, you do. See your post of Oct 28 at 11:04.
state power that you seem to abhor *snip* the people you seem to put such blind trust in, the judiciary
So you’re saying that I both abhor state power and trust it blindly? Yeesh. No one is ever going to accuse you of having a logically coherent imagination.
While you’re doing some googling, check out how quickly a strep B infection can be fatal
I brought up strep B because according to the Mirror article linked above, Nancy’s medical problems were caused by untreated strep B in utero. Thanks for confirming that you “can’t find” out anything about her health because you literally will not lift a finger to do so.
One source says lethal injection, another source says a dissolved luminal tablet that rendered him unconscious and then dead. Either way he was far more humane than the English judge, at least by your standards. – what’s your point?
Patients would later be gassed with carbon monoxide, it was more efficient and quicker. Also less expensive. – interesting, but so what?
Again what’s the difference? It was a state official. So a judge in England orders a child killed. The difference? Or are judges in England the equivalent of Nazi thugs? – David Cameron didn’t issue a directive.
Like I said, you obviously have no clue what you’re talking about when it comes to medical matters. – I think you’ve quite clearly demonstrated your ability to pick the bits that suit you and ignore the ones which don’t. That and the exaggeration and uninformed diagnoses.
No it doesn’t debunk the claim at all Reality. The nurses were willing participants. They were not forced or threatened. Only a small minority took part, but nonetheless they willingly took part. – so which of the articles you provided are you going with? The one which said they had no choice or the one that said they could say ‘no’ but some said ‘yes’? Which also told us of their profound sense of duty and obedience. A far cry from the ‘enthusiastic volunteers’ you kept claiming.
They viewed their work as compassionate. – some did. Some. Stop the selective referencing.
Fascism was the cause? – who said that? Not me, it was the article that you provided.
Well then why did only a small minority who were not forced take part? Why didn’t the vast majority? – that would be because it didn’t amount to your claim of ‘enthusiastic volunteers’.
Did they not know what was going on, or did they just choose not to know? – you supplied the articles, you tell me. Decide.
“Children were given ever increasing doses of phenobarbital by nurses”. Sounds like they did more than just hold the victims’ hands. – well if they were intending to cause death as per your claims then just holding their hands ain’t gonna achieve much.
There is some dispute over the child’s identity, and the date of the occurence, but no dispute over the actual occurence. – there is enough dispute that it is questionable that it ever happened. Nor is there any solid evidence that it did.
Also records likely were not kept, and under these circumstances, parents would not be likely to tell siblings what actually happened to a baby brother/sister. So the sister who was interviewed may not know for certain if that was her sibling. – then the whole thing becomes even more questionable.
It wasn’t uncommon in this country for children not to know they had siblings in state institutions. – and?
Look, this is all rather interesting but what you’ve basically been doing is attempting to equate someone bumping into a jewish person in the street with the events and circumstances of the Nazi holocaust.
Your links in your 11:41am comment are utterly irrelevant and add nothing. Like all the others you’ve provided, they question your claims more than they confirm them.
You have attempted to create a forest from a box of used matches.
So let’s summarise:
You keep harping on about blockers as if they are some sort of failsafe panacea.
You keep claiming that if Nancy was close to death then pain relief wasn’t necessary.
You compare one individual case, dealt with on its own merits, with a widespread campaign launched by the leader of a nation.
You repeatedly claimed that the nurses involved in Nazi Germany were enthusiastic volunteers when the very articles that you provided showed otherwise.
You falsely claimed that intellectuals and judges were involved in the killing process.
The bottom line is that Nancy was both suffering and facing certain death. The team at one of the world’s finest hospitals supported the mothers request. The judge weighed up the information and also supported the mother’s request. You know almost nothing compared to those were a part of the decision making in this case.
You don’t have to like or agree with what took place. But constructing a whole raft of unrealistically rigid medical imperatives when you know so little about the case and conflating the situation with a Nazi pogrom, which you couldn’t even represent accurately, isn’t going to work.
There’s also the fact that this isn’t about targeting the disabled. It’s about one child who was suffering dreadfully who also happened to be disabled.
LisaC,
I said no effort is apparently being made. Which leaves open the possibility I could be wrong. I have yet to hear why the child was being heavily drugged.
No, I’m saying you seem to abhor the gov’t power where the NHS is concerned, but have no problem with it when a judge sentences a child to death.
Her problems were caused by B strep in utero? Sad, but your point is? You raised the point of B strep in your post and I pointed out it can be a very serious and fatal infection. Nancy’s condition is an example of how seriously this microbe is to be taken. I gave another example.
As for Nancy’s alleged liver failure, again if this was an irreversible terminal condition there would be no need for her mother to go to court. Sepsis was also mentioned by you. This could lead to generalized organ failure, including heart, lungs, and kidney if not treated immediately. The young woman I mentioned visiting the ER immediately ended up in intensive care and needed kidney dialysis. I never heard if she recovered. HIPPA. I have cared for hepatic coma patients, the result of alcoholism induced liver failure, and while they are not a pretty sight, in fact I dreaded it, there would be no use or need for narcotics.
Again LisaC, be very wary of the fact this mother went to court. Families of terminal patients don’t need to go to court to put loved ones in hospice or decide to withhold further treatments.
Sad, but your point is?
Evidently over your head.
Reality,
My point is you should be glad this Nazi official showed more humanity than the English judge. Don’t you wish all children like Nancy could be disposed of this way?
Oh David Cameron didn’t order it. Well, that makes all the difference.
No, this was not about the nurse’s “profound sense of duty” and “obedience”. Why didn’t the majority have this “profound sense of duty” and “obedience”, especially when there was no fear of reprisal? The point is no nurse was forced, their actions were voluntary. They weren’t enthusiastic? Well let’s just say they weren’t dragged into this kicking and screaming. They obviously believed in what they were doing. They had other options, but didn’t choose them.
The dispute of details isn’t proof the incident did not occur. In fact, is there any evidence it was made up?
No, I have never said nerve blocks are a panacea. I said they can be an alternative to pain medications and offer a patient relief from pain and drugging.
No, I question if Nancy was close to death and why pain relief was necessary. Can you answer those questions?
No the eugenics campaign was not launched by a nation’s leader, it was launched in the United States and Germany by intellectuals, doctors, professors, etc. who felt certain people are better off dead.
The articles I provided showed that nurses voluntarily involved themselves in the selection and killing of patients. They were not forced, they had other options. Enthusiasm does not have to mean they were jumping up and down, but that they were dedicated to the cause, which they obviously were.
I showed you the link that judges were dedicated to the Nazi cause, including euthanasia. I also pointed out one judge who resisted the Nazis. Also, intellectuals, while not directly involved in the actual killing, had advocated for them. I also showed that the Germans didn’t dream this up, they were inspired by American eugenicists.
So tell me exactly what Nancy was suffering from and why death was imminent. Also, if she was terminal, why was it necessary for her mother to go to court?
What I point out is that it wasn’t the Nazis who dreamed this up, they were inspired by American and German eugenicists. The medical and judicial professions did the Nazi dirty work. The very people you think you can blindly trust, the judicial and medical communities, might well be the people you need be most wary of.
Yes this was about a child who was disabled. Tell me how she was suffering “dreadfully”. Not about targeting the disabled? Can you be sure of that?
LisaC,
Are you not capable of giving an intelligent answer?
My point is you should be glad this Nazi official showed more humanity than the English judge. Don’t you wish all children like Nancy could be disposed of this way? – the English judge couldn’t order such methodology be employed.
Oh David Cameron didn’t order it. Well, that makes all the difference. – it does if you are either honest about it or apply some thinking.
No, this was not about the nurse’s “profound sense of duty” and “obedience”. – so now you’re directly disputing the article that YOU provided in support of your imaginary claims!
Why didn’t the majority have this “profound sense of duty” and “obedience”, especially when there was no fear of reprisal? – you tell me, they’re your articles. Don’t you understand them?
The point is no nurse was forced, their actions were voluntary. – depends which of the articles that YOU provided you want to believe.
They weren’t enthusiastic? Well let’s just say they weren’t dragged into this kicking and screaming. They obviously believed in what they were doing. They had other options, but didn’t choose them. – which is still a long way short of being ‘enthusiastic volunteers’.
The dispute of details isn’t proof the incident did not occur. – hahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!
In fact, is there any evidence it was made up? – you expect me to accept it as valid out of hand? It’s so tenuous as to be highly doubtful.
No, I have never said nerve blocks are a panacea. I said they can be an alternative to pain medications and offer a patient relief from pain and drugging. – you intimated they are always effective when used.
No, I question if Nancy was close to death and why pain relief was necessary. Can you answer those questions? – and you keep claiming to have worthwhile medical knowledge and the ability to diagnose everything about her from a remote location. What a joke. I get the distinct impression you’ve read almost nothing of the various information available.
No the eugenics campaign was not launched by a nation’s leader, it was launched by intellectuals in the United States and Germany. By intellectuals, doctors, professors, etc. who felt certain people are better off dead. – ‘campaign’? It was discussed, it was proposed, it was written about. You claimed that the intellectuals and judges were part of the killing, they weren’t.
The articles I provided showed that nurses voluntarily involved themselves in the selection and killing of patients. – one said they were forced, the other said some chose to participate, which one are you going with? And where did this ‘nurses involved in selection’ suddenly come from?
They were not forced, they had other options. Enthusiasm does not have to mean they were jumping up and down, but that they were dedicated to the cause, which they obviously were. – the cause they were dedicated to was obedience and the fatherland, as explained in YOUR articles. “The nursing staffs of the euthanasia centers were often forced to swear an oath of loyalty, pledging eternal silence regarding what went on in the clinic, under pain of death” – yeah, enthusiasm.
I showed you the link that judges were dedicated to the Nazi cause, including euthanasia. I also pointed out one judge who resisted the Nazis. – but they weren’t rubber stamping the deaths as you claimed.
Also, intellectuals, while not directly involved in the actual killing, had advocated for them. – but didn’t participate, unlike what you claimed.
I also showed that the Germans didn’t dream this up, they were inspired by American eugenicists. – so what?
So tell me exactly what Nancy was suffering from and why death was imminent. – why would I think you would absorb anything this time?
Also, if she was terminal, why was it necessary for her mother to go to court? – you really, really ignore so much and latch on to so little.
What I point out is that it wasn’t the Nazis who dreamed this up, they were inspired by American and German eugenicists. – so what? That has zero to do with Nancy’s case.
The medical and judicial professions did the Nazi dirty work. The very people you think you can blindly trust, the judicial and medical communities, might well be the people you need be most wary of. – that is an inaccurate statement, as evidenced by YOUR articles.
Yes this was about a child who was disabled. – that simply is not true. It’s about a young child who was badly suffering who happened to be disabled and whose condition was contributed to by elements of her disabilities. The mother didn’t want to ease her suffering because she was blind. Not because she couldn’t walk. Nor because she couldn’t talk. It was because she didn’t want her to suffer unnecessarily.
Tell me how she was suffering “dreadfully”. – you STILL haven’t read the article?!? After all this time?!?
Not about targeting the disabled? Can you be sure of that? – I’m even more sure of it given what you’ve been serving up.
Are you not capable of giving an intelligent answer?
Intelligent answers have no effect on willful ignorance, which you are obviously clinging to. But if you like, we can break it down into steps.
1). What medical conditions might strep B cause in infants?
2). Do any of these conditions have the potential to cause pain?
3). Did Nancy Wise have any of those conditions?
Let the Googling begin!
LisaC, be very wary of the fact this mother went to court. Families of terminal patients don’t need to go to court to put loved ones in hospice or decide to withhold further treatments.
You’ll forgive me if I’m skeptical of the legal expertise of someone who only 36 hours ago thought it was “too bad” that England had no hospice care.
Reality,
We keep going over these same points time and again and I address your questions time and again. If you have any sources to prove mine wrong, please post them.
In the meantime, please address the questions I raised.
1.Please tell me what conditions Nancy was suffering that caused her to be in such pain. Exactly how was she suffering? Or do you just assume that because she was disabled she was suffering?
2. If Nancy was terminal, why was it necessary for her mother to go to court? Also, what was she dying from?
LisaC,
If one has an intelligent answer, then childish retorts are not necessary.
1. Nancy was severely disabled. Its reported her disabilities were caused by B strep. Ok, the point is… what? Please, an intelligent answer this time.
2. You tell me. What condition did she have that caused pain?
3. You tell me. After all, you’re the one who makes the claim she was in pain.
I make no claim to legal expertise. Also, when did I say it was “too bad” England had no hospice care? Please show me the post. I assumed they did and that Nancy would be put in their care if necessary. Then the article I posted made the hospice care they do have sound a little dubious.
Reality,
The nurses were sworn to secrecy so that proves they were not dedicated or enthusiastic about what they did? Also, they had the option to opt out without fear of reprisal. Other nurses did. You pointed out the euthanasia nurses were in a minority, so obviously nurses did have options. Why didn’t they take them?
So why is it not likely they were enthusiastic about what they did? Again that doesn’t mean they were jumping up and down, just that they were very dedicated and willing.
We keep going over these same points time and again – you’re the one who keeps delivering a suspect and contradictory history of Nazi Germany for no point whatsoever.
and I address your questions time and again. – no you don’t You just load up more speculative and contradictory tripe.
If you have any sources to prove mine wrong, please post them. – yes, the ones you’ve provided, as I have demonstrated to you time after time after time.
In the meantime, please address the questions I raised. – you repeatedly ignoring what I provide =/= me not addressing them. But to give you yet another chance…..
Please tell me what conditions Nancy was suffering that caused her to be in such pain. Exactly how was she suffering? – I wasn’t there, neither were you. The medical team at one of the world’s finest hospitals was. Your failure to grasp or accept what we have been told isn’t on me.
Or do you just assume that because she was disabled she was suffering? – I said pretty much the opposite if you’d bothered to take any notice. Remember “It’s about a young child who was badly suffering who happened to be disabled and whose condition was contributed to by elements of her disabilities. The mother didn’t want to ease her suffering because she was blind. Not because she couldn’t walk. Nor because she couldn’t talk. It was because she didn’t want her to suffer unnecessarily.” Your blatantly willful ignorance of this is stunning.
If Nancy was terminal, why was it necessary for her mother to go to court? – to reduce the length of time she would suffer for. Why is this concept proving so hard for you to comprehend. Why would you have wanted her suffering prolonged?
Also, what was she dying from? – if you’re going to ignore what we’ve been told there’s no point me repeating it.
Reality,
You told me she was suffering. What was she suffering from?
Oh about a young child who is suffering who happens to be disabled. Right. Her disability would have nothing to do with anyone wanting to see this child die. OK, so what is she suffering from?
So you can’t tell me what she was dying from, only that she was dying.
The nurses were sworn to secrecy so that proves they were not dedicated or enthusiastic about what they did? – it emphasizes their obedience and sense of duty.
Also, they had the option to opt out without fear of reprisal. Other nurses did. You pointed out the euthanasia nurses were in a minority, so obviously nurses did have options. Why didn’t they take them? – according to one of the articles, not the other. Which one are you choosing to select from?
So why is it not likely they were enthusiastic about what they did? – why is it likely? You made the claim, not me. You repeatedly claimed they were ‘enthusiastic volunteers’ and have provided nothing to support that claim.
Again that doesn’t mean they were jumping up and down, just that they were very dedicated and willing. dedicated and willing? You mean obedient with a sense of duty.
You told me she was suffering. What was she suffering from? – more willful ignorance? Try reading the story. It does tell us you know.
Oh about a young child who is suffering who happens to be disabled. Right. – right. If you read the facts of the matter rather than launching into some Nazi-ridden conspiracy agenda you’d know that.
Her disability would have nothing to do with anyone wanting to see this child die. – right. If you read the facts of the matter rather than launching into some Nazi-ridden conspiracy agenda you’d know that.
OK, so what is she suffering from? – you’re not even funny any more. Nah, scratch that, you’re beyond funny.
So you can’t tell me what she was dying from, only that she was dying. – well I’m not ‘Mary the transcendental medical expert of everything’ but I can read. Try it.
Reality,
The fact the nurse were sworn to secrecy and the euthanasia project had to be kept a strict secret only reinforces the argument that the project could utilize only the nurses they knew they could trust. Likely the reason nurses could opt out with no fear of reprisal, it was a good way to filter out those who would not be willing and could not be trusted with such a secret.
That would have to be nurses willing and dedicated. Obedient with a sense of duty means you do your job. It doesn’t mean you can violate your conscience.
Nurses enthusiastic about their work are doing work they want and are dedicated to. Like the euthenasia nurses.
Reality,
It would take you less time to answer the questions than to evade them.
1. What conditions were causing her to suffer? Why did she have to be heavily drugged?
2. No, hardly a nazi ridden conspiracy. A judge sentenced a handicapped child to die. Nothing new about a handicapped child being condemned to die.
3. What was she dying from?
Nancy was severely disabled. Its reported her disabilities were caused by B strep. Ok, the point is… what?
The point is the same as it was the last two times I said it. You are obviously choosing not to read anything about Nancy’s medical condition because that might require you to consider the possibility that someone else’s pain is more important than your obsession with your closet monster.
2. You tell me. What condition did she have that caused pain?
If Google isn’t working out for you on this one, do you know anyone, anyone at all, who has any familiarity with the practice of medicine? Maybe they could help you out.
3. You tell me. After all, you’re the one who makes the claim she was in pain.
Actually that claim was made by people who, unlike you, are medical professionals who are familiar with the child’s case. Do you know anyone, anyone at all, with any familiarity with the practice of medicine? If you do, ask them what’s wrong with the presumption that no one is in pain until you have personally deemed it so.
I make no claim to legal expertise
Okay. I’m glad we agree that the inferences you make about the court proceedings aren’t worth the paper they’re written on.
Please show me the post
Seriously? You need me to read your own comment to you? I hope you don’t have a job that requires you to retain information in your head. Nov 5, at 9:37 AM: Hospice care also provides comfort care and assistance to the family. Too bad you don’t have it in England.
So you can’t tell me what she was dying from, only that she was dying
The mother discusses it in detail on her Facebook page. Do you know anyone, anyone at all, with any familiarity with the practice of medicine? They might be able to help you understand it.
But we don’t know that for sure do we. One article said as much, the other didn’t. Which one was correct and why?
That would have to be nurses willing and dedicated. Obedient with a sense of duty means you do your job. It doesn’t mean you can violate your conscience. – ROFLMBO! How do you come up with this stuff? Dedication doesn’t always mean enthusiastic!
Nurses enthusiastic about their work are doing work they want and are dedicated to. Like the euthenasia nurses. – it still fails to demonstrate that they are ‘enthusiastic volunteers’ though.
I don’t even know why you want to try to dispense some sort of half-baked theory on the mindset of nurses in Nazi-era Germany anyway. It has nothing to do with Nancy’s case.
LisaC,
1. You haven’t told me what was causing her pain. Please tell me why she had to be heavily drugged.
2. You’re the one who insists she was in pain. Tell me what caused he pain.
3. Ok, whoever made the claim, tell me the source of her pain and why this necessitated heavy doses of pain meds.
4. If families went to court every time patients needed end of life care, the courts would be running 24/7/365. If a patient is terminal a visit to court isn’t necessary. The patient can go into hospice and receive the end of life care they need. Most can get it at home.
5. I asked Reality if they don’t have hospice care in England like we do in the states. If not its too bad since it is such a great service. I had assumed they do have it.
Where do you get “Too bad you don’t have it in England”?
6. So tell me what she was dying from.
It would take you less time to answer the questions than to evade them. – the evading is in your continued decision to ignore the information provided to you time and time again. I’ve spent more than enough time delivering the answers. If you want to save time, try absorbing them.
What conditions were causing her to suffer? Why did she have to be heavily drugged? – why would you prefer me to paraphrase what we were told rather than read it for yourself? Since you don’t like to accept the truth from me anyway wouldn’t it be better if you got it from, you know, THE SOURCE?
No, hardly a nazi ridden conspiracy. A judge sentenced a handicapped child to die. – yes, a Nazi-ridden conspiracy theory. Hitler targeted the disabled. Nancy wasn’t ‘targeted’. Nor was her death hastened because she was ‘handicapped’. If she’d had black hair you’d be claiming that was the reason.
Nothing new about a handicapped child being condemned to die. – good job that’s not what happened here then isn’t it.
What was she dying from? – surely even you must get fed up with your willful ignorance eventually.
Yet another repeating of information to assist you Mary – Nov 5th 9:37am
Hospice care also provides comfort care and assistance to the family. Too bad you don’t have it in England.
I have skimmed the comments here but a few things come to mind:
If Nancy had the same physical disabilities and was crying out in pain but functioned at a higher mental level and was able to express her wish TO NOT DIE, would the parents and/or courts have gone through with their starvation/dehydration plan?
I’m guessing if Nancy had the same physical disabilities and was crying out in pain but functioned at a higher mental level and was able to express her wish TO DIE, the parents and/or courts would have supported her wish.
Like Brittany Maynard’s mom who said she supported her daughter’s “choice” to commit suicide. I’d like to ask Brittany’s mom if her daughter had been unable to talk and ended up with a brain tumor, would she have just starved/dehydrated Brittany to death when Brittany expressed pain/unhappiness through yelling out?
Reality,
In the first article the nurses use the excuse of following orders much like the German officers who committed mass murder. Yet the nurses claimed they were doing compassionate work? Where in the article do the nurses express any outrage over what they were allegedly forced to do? What did they have to fear after the war? Like the German officers, they could just say they followed orders.
In the second article this is contradicted and I am more inclined to believe this article. Nurses could opt out, which makes sense, you would want nurses dedicated and willing, who could be trusted to keep a secret. Yes oaths were required, and it was easy to see why. I suspect a lot of oaths of secrecy are required by our government. You point out it was only a minority of nurses. Why is that if nurses were so blindly obedient and had no choice?
I didn’t say dedication means enthusiasm. Dedication and a willingness to do a job one wants to be doing and enjoys in my opinion can be considered enthusiasm for your job. Doing a job you have to do just to bring home a paycheck isn’t my idea of a job one would be very enthusiastic about.
I’m enthusiastic about the work I do, I love what I do, its what I want to do, and I consider myself dedicated to my profession. I must admit though that my enthusiasm is a bit constrained when the alarm goes off at 5am.
My bad. I hadn’t read all the way down.
Actually I was responding to your comment “you know all about the British medical system do you”? in response to my post about hospice care at home. I took that to mean this isn’t the case in England. My apologies if I was wrong.
In the first article the nurses use the excuse of following orders much like the German officers who committed mass murder. Yet some of the nurses claimed they were doing compassionate work? Where in the article do the nurses express any outrage over what they were allegedly forced to do? What did they have to fear after the war? Like the German officers, they could just say they followed orders. – the point is they weren’t the ‘enthusiastic volunteers’ that you claimed they were.
In the second article this is contradicted and I am more inclined to believe this article. Nurses could opt out, which makes sense, you would want nurses dedicated and willing, who could be trusted to keep a secret. Yes oaths were required, and it was easy to see why. I suspect a lot of oaths of secrecy are required by our government. You point out it was only a minority of nurses. Why is that if nurses were so blindly obedient and had no choice? – you tell me, they’re your articles. And again, it still don’t demonstrate them being ‘enthusiastic volunteers’.
I didn’t say dedication means enthusiasm. Dedication and a willingness to do a job one wants to be doing and enjoys in my opinion can be considered enthusiasm for your job. Doing a job you have to do just to bring home a paycheck isn’t my idea of a job one would be very enthusiastic about. – so you don’t know anyone at all who is less than enthusiastic about the job they do to put food on the table? Especially in times when good jobs are hard to come by?
I’m enthusiastic about the work I do, I love what I do, its what I want to do, and I consider myself dedicated to my profession. – well bully for you!
I must admit though that my enthusiasm is a bit constrained when the alarm goes off at 5am. – I haven’t used an alarm or worn a watch for years. I’m pleased about that but I don’t think enthusiastic would be the right term.
Reality,
Speaking of having to repeat things.
1.What conditions were causing Nancy to to suffer? Why did she have to be so heavily drugged?
2. What was she dying from?
Reality,
In the first article the nurses claimed they were following orders, yet felt their work was compassionate. Kind of a contradiction.
In the second article the nurses could be trusted to secrecy and opted not to work elsewhere, suggesting they were in agreement with what was going on and willing to be involved. This also indicated to their superiors they could be trusted with secrecy. Again not jumping up and down, enthusiasm in the fact they were doing what they wanted and were dedicated to their work.
Uh Reality, I said people who do a job they have to just to bring home a paycheck are not likely to be enthusiastic. Yes I know lots of people less than enthused about their jobs.
Speaking of having to repeat things. – well this time I’m not going to. I’ll just leave you to flounder on your own pretenses.
In the first article the nurses claimed they were following orders, yet felt their work was compassionate. Kind of a contradiction. – not really.
Trusted to secrecy on pain of death? Again, dedicated and obedient, not ‘enthusiastic volunteers’.
Then why do you keep conflating dedication with enthusiasm? From one of your articles – “I didn’t have enough time to think about it at that time because the nurses were put under a lot of stress”.
You know, Mary, I think you might be onto something with the whole “Everything is presumed false until Mary deems it true” shtick. So, let’s follow your logic a bit further. Why do you think that the girl was killed because she was disabled? How do you even know that she was disabled? Maybe the mother just wanted evenings free to party. Or maybe–and this is the most likely, yet most terrifying scenario–maybe they sacrificed a perfectly healthy child to the monster in your closet!
Run, Mary! You could be next!
Well Reality,
Of course this secret had to be kept and yes there would be severe punishment. That went for all involved, including the nurses. That does not prove the people involved were forced. If something is this much of a secret, you want people you know you can trust.
I’m sure nurses were put under a lot of stress. The selection and killing process was demanding and grueling. They didn’t have time to think about it? Yeah, right. That doesn’t prove the nurses were forced or that they had no enthusiasm for their work.
LisaC,
Please answer the questions I asked.
1. What was causing her pain and why did she have to be drugged?
2. What was she dying from?
I have a question for LisaC as well.
Would you have supported the parents and courts to starve/dehydrate Nancy to death if she had the exact same disabilities (and did some yelling out in pain or frustration) but she was verbal and she had voiced her wish to live?
Y’all have fired up this thread pretty well. :P
It does raise the question – how much suffering would there have to be for us to want to die, or for us to have a non-communicative family member die?
I think you’ve run out of anything new to add to your little history lesson on what may or may not have happened in Nazi Germany Mary. You’re just repeating, and contradicting, yourself. There is nothing, absolutely nothing, which confirms your claim of the nurses being ‘enthusiastic volunteers’. Mary’s opinion, how Mary wants things to be and whatever Mary claims are not default positions until proven otherwise. They need to be proven in the first instance.
None of this has anything whatsoever to do with the case of Nancy anyway.
Reality,
Again, please answer my questions.
1. What was Nancy suffering from and why did she require such potent pain drugs?
2. You said Nancy was facing certain death. Why was this? Was she dying, and of what?
All you are doing Mary, is reinforcing the fact that you have failed to read the information available from the original source. And your propensity to provide links to sources which pretty much negate a number of your claims. The utter absence of evidence for your version of events compared to the available information and it’s origins, your claim to know more from the other side of the planet than a team of doctors at one of the world’s finest hospitals where the events took place, and your spurious, repetitious and irrelevant journey into Nazi Germany don’t need my help.
Reality,
Kindly answer the questions posted by me and addressed to you at a 7:08PM.
If you can’t, say so.
Can.
Did.
Have.
As did LisaC.
As did the source.
Your desire to paint an inaccurate picture of what took place and just as importantly, why it took place, is unviable.
Reality,
Kindly answer the questions in my 7:08PM post. BTW LisaC didn’t answer them either. Perhaps you can point out where my questions have been answered.
Hi Prax,
You mentioned an article that says Nancy’s parents were seperated and are now back together. Interesting timing. Was this her biological father? Are you able to source this at all?
Kindly answer the questions in my 7:08PM post. BTW LisaC didn’t answer them either. Perhaps you can point out where my questions have been answered.
Please read the thread. I gave you the information I had and referred you to the sources. It is obvious from your question to Praxades that you still have not read the articles accompanying this blog post. It is also obvious that you could not care less about the girl’s suffering are remaining willfully ignorant about her story so that you can keep spouting your uninformed opinions and believe they are relevant.
It’s interesting that your fount of medical knowledge dried up the instant I asked you a question that was actually relevant to the case. A cynic would think that whatever TV show you’re lifting your ER anecdotes from hasn’t done a prenatal strep B story yet, but that still doesn’t explain why you can’t just Google the information. Possibly it’s because your link-clicking finger is broken?
Would you have supported the parents and courts to starve/dehydrate Nancy to death if she had the exact same disabilities (and did some yelling out in pain or frustration) but she was verbal and she had voiced her wish to live?
No. Do you actually think that it would be in the court in the first place if she had?
RE your illness story:
My husband still talks about how sad it was to see me in that much pain.
It’s a shame that he’s still sad about that. Someone should do for him what you have graciously done for Ms. FitzMaurice Wise: “call bs” on his story and explain that you were just “frustrated.” Then he wouldn’t need to bother his head with trying to feel empathy anymore. It’s certainly working for you.
Hi Mary, This is the article that talks of the parents being separated and now back together. It doesn’t specifically say Wise is bio-dad:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/real-life-stories/begged-judge-end-sick-daughters-4509235
LisaC, this case may have not have ended up in the court if Nancy was verbal. One never knows though — some people are abused and/or over-medicated so that they become non-verbal. The Jeffrey Dahmer victims come to mind.
Disabled people, verbal or not, are easier targets for the haters than we are.
LisaC,
Please tell me
1. What condition was Nancy suffering from that required such high doses of pain medications?
2. What was her terminal condition?
Telling me that Nancy’s condition was caused by B strep isn’t answering my questions. Neither is telling me to read the thread.
Hi Prax,
Thank you for the article.
What better way to rekindle a romance than to kill off your child? Do the names Diane Downs and Susan Smith come to mind?
Also, a fund in Nancy’s name to help parents pay for their children’s funerals? Doesn’t that seem a bit ghoulish? How about honoring Nancy’s memory by establishing a fund to help people with disablities and their families?
I’ve learned on thing over the years Prax, there is always the story behind the story.
BTW LisaC,
Thank you for your concern but my link clicking finger is fine. I hope you put yours to good work answering my questions.
Why would you do that to your own child?! I think that the method of death used for this “allowing of death” is horrible. Why would you ever kill your own disabled child by this form. Starvation and dehydration is one of the most painful methods of death you could ever have. So why do it?! An injection would of been less painful or maybe not killing the child at all would be a good option. Maybe giving her medication would be a good option. And if she “was ending her suffering.” Then why kill her in this manner. It makes me sad to think that anyone would think this was a good idea. This was murder. We all know it was murder. Maybe killing the daughter in a less painful way. Why didn’t they think of that. :(
Ah yes, Mary.
The story behind the story usually makes for a good story.
Poor little Nancy couldn’t talk. But there were people around her that just might start to, I pray.
Ellie, did you see my post above regarding firing squads? Whaddya think about multiple guns and numerous bullets and big men with great eyesight?
It doesn’t specifically say Wise is bio-dad
It says that he’s her father. That means that he’s either the child’s biological or legal parent. Or both.
The Jeffrey Dahmer victims come to mind.
So you think that the Jeffrey Dahmer victims were killed in a hospital following a judicial proceeding, then?
Disabled people, verbal or not, are easier targets for the haters than we are.
They’re also more vulnerable to indifference. Some people think that disabled people don’t even feel pain like we do–they just get “frustrated.”
Telling me that Nancy’s condition was caused by B strep isn’t answering my questions. Neither is telling me to read the thread.
Translation: you don’t know what complications can be caused by strep B in utero and you can’t be bothered to find information that is not fed to you like a worm dropped into a baby bird’s open beak, even if that same information was dropped into your cheeping mouth a day earlier. And for some bizarre reason you’ve apparently convinced yourself that anything you make up is true until proven false.
Here’s another question you’re not going to answer. In a hospital, would anyone take seriously a nurse who had never seen a patient nor examined her chart and yet insisted that her medical opinion should be believed over that of physicians who had actually seen and treated the patient?
Also, a fund in Nancy’s name to help parents pay for their children’s funerals? Doesn’t that seem a bit ghoulish?
Do you think that a disabled child’s body should be buried in a potter’s field, or just thrown into a ditch? Though let the record show that you’ve offered no evidence that she was disabled in the first place.
But there were people around her that just might start to, I pray.
Your prayers have been answered: they already presented their case to the court.
LisaC,
He could have been her stepfather and not be her legal father if he didn’t adopt her.
Translation: You are unable to tell me the condition she was suffering from that required such heavy doses of pain meds. You also can’t tell me what her terminal condition was.
As for your question concerning a nurse: That happened all the time when I was an ER nurse. People were carried in and you had no idea who they were, what was wrong, what treatment the patient needed, or what would happen. Like the lady I told you about with a B strep infection.
Why is it assumed parents of disabled children can’t afford to properly bury their children? Apparently Nancy’s parents could. Also, it didn’t specify disabled children.
I would think a fund to assist living children so they don’t have to be buried at an early age would somehow be more appropriate and compassionate, but that’s just me.
“So you think that the Jeffrey Dahmer victims were killed in a hospital following a judicial proceeding, then?”
So you think Nancy was a victim who was killed, then?
Perhaps you can point out where my questions have been answered. – to which the same answer that LisaC has given you applies – “Please read the thread. I gave you the information I had and referred you to the sources. It is obvious from your question to Praxades that you still have not read the articles accompanying this blog post. It is also obvious that you could not care less about the girl’s suffering are remaining willfully ignorant about her story so that you can keep spouting your uninformed opinions and believe they are relevant.”
And for some bizarre reason you’ve apparently convinced yourself that anything you make up is true until proven false. – exactly!
Your refusal to acknowledge the information which has been provided to you Mary, does not translate as it not having been given.
Reality,
Please answer the following questions:
1. What was Nancy suffering from that required her to have such high doses of pain meds?
2. What was her terminal condition?
Mary,
Please answer the following questions:
1. Why have you persisted in failing to acknowledge that you have been provided with the information, including from the original sources?
2. What was the (inaccurately presented) nazi history stuff intended to denote?
Reality,
I’m convinced you can’t answer my questions though you have been given ample opportunity to do so. Thank you.
You may be convinced, but that just says even more about you. Very convincing things.
Thank you.
:-)
LOL
He could have been her stepfather and not be her legal father if he didn’t adopt her.
If you look very, very closely at the words “father” and “stepfather,” you’ll see that they’re not the same. And then, if you read any of the articles about the case, you’ll see that David Wise is identified as Nancy’s father. Not stepfather.
Translation: You are unable to tell me the condition she was suffering from that required such heavy doses of pain meds. You also can’t tell me what her terminal condition was.
Mary, your helpless cheeping is truly piteous. But the worms will be fresher if you dig them out yourself. Fly, little bird, to another source!
That happened all the time when I was an ER nurse.
It “happened all the time” that the hospital took seriously a nurse who had never seen a patient nor examined her chart and yet insisted that her medical opinion should be believed over that of physicians who had actually seen and treated the patient? Sounds like they had a bit of a quality control problem.
Why is it assumed parents of disabled children can’t afford to properly bury their children? Apparently Nancy’s parents could. Also, it didn’t specify disabled children.
That’s true, it didn’t specify disabled children. So apparently you’re on board with potter’s field for everyone.
LisaC, So you think Nancy was a victim who was killed, then?
LisaC, So you think Nancy was a victim who was killed, then?
I think the Dahmer victims were victims who were killed. You may or may not remember caring about them a few posts back.
Yes, I do, Lisa C. I believe it is pure evil when humans overmaticate or drug other humans to make them easier to abuse and/or kill.