Anyone seen this?

http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-1237369,00.html

This little girl is now up for fostering because her parents can't cope as they have split up.

Now, call me controversial, but the money that has gone into the fight to keep this little girl alive, and the legal battles, and they get her this far and now she has no home??!!



Anyone else got any thoughts?

>Anyone else got any thoughts?

None that I could politely articulate.

M.

Let's just hope that lessons have been learned from this sad story :( :(

Daisy

The poor little mite, she didnt ask to come into this world.

I could say a load of things about selfish people but that wouldnt help her would it.

I hope something is learnt from this

Wendy

>I hope something is learnt from this

What?   Are people suggesting it might have been better that the court had decided her life was not worth resusitating because her parents have now separated or simply that the, impartial, judge made the wrong decision?

In the dog world, people often think that having a very poorly puppy PTS is a brave decision and commend the breeder. Should the decision be the same or different in human babies ? I'm not afraid to say that had either of my children been born with similar, severe defects, I may have been tempted to want a 'no rescucitation' policy. I'm not sure that I could have coped :( Had these poor parents really considered how they would be able to cope with Charlotte, particularly as they had two (?) other, small children and what would be the quality of her life.

It is a very difficult topic - I'm just thankful that I have never had to make such a decision

Daisy

>Should the decision be the same or different in human babies ?

Absolutely.
As I say, I don't think whether or not the parents could have coped is all that pertinent as the issue of whether her life has quality should not be affected by it.

Completely agree with Isabel here - the issue is about the child's quality of life, not about the parents.

M.

Are the parents not an integral part of a childs quality of life?

To be honest, I'd say no, many children live 'normal' lives in foster/adoptive care. I realise that it is a big assumption from outside, but assuming we have been made reasonably aware of all the facts, I think going to the lengths necessary to keep this child alive was probably selfish on the part of the parents.

M.

They certainly enhance a childs life but they are not an integral part otherwise we would say all orphans have no quality of life.

I disagree :)

Having seen the effect a missing father had on my husband, missing parents on my adopted aunt, and missing parents on my adopted cousins - it has a HUGE effect. Orphans, adoptees, abandonees may have a quality of life - but they are always missing something IMO.

Children's lives are also sometimes enhanced by their parents' absence, in the case of mental/physical abuse though, don't forget. In an ideal world, a stable parental home would be good, but life is not always ideal.

M.

> Children's lives are also sometimes enhanced by their parents' absence, in the case of mental/physical abuse though, don't forget

But only enhanced from the position of an already poor one. Doubt whether it could be enhanced to be as good as having the best - (in most people's opinions) having two loving parents

Daisy

I don't think we are disagreeing :) Unless you are disagreeing with that :D
His life would have been enhanced by having his father but integral means essential and he did not loose all quality of life and would have been better off dead .  Therefore there is more to the quality of a child's life than just parents. 

I think if you were to ask him, you would get the answer that he felt his life was lacking through having no father. Whilst he wouldn't have been better off dead - he would have rather had his dad around :)

This baby is still severely disabled. She probably would not be here by now had the parents not challenged the doctors legally. Now she doesn't have them to care for her. Leaves a bad taste in my mouth it does. They should see it through - all the way.

> They should see it through - all the way

I think that the fact that they had another baby after she was born indicates that they didn't give due consideration to being able to care for her at home. They should have waited until she was at home and they had established that they could cope, before bringing another baby into the home. Am I being a bit harsh thinking that the decision on having another baby should be well considered by all parents, let alone those with serious problems already :rolleyes:

Daisy

I wonder if they thought she would never come home and would always be in hospital? I just think its tragic. To have got her this far and now be unable to care for her... :(

The phrase "A fate worse than death" springs to mind here. :(

Surely her life quality has not plummeted because she will not now be cared for in her family home?

Her life quality isn't what I would choose for a child; it always has been 'worse than death' IMO. Her parents wanted her kept alive at all costs. They got their wish - and now realise the consequences. Poor child - a helpless pawn.

I don't think anybody would choose it! :)  But it is was it is and it is not changed by whether or not the parents are the carers.

Her parents chose it for her though, didn't they? Now they're leaving her situation to others to deal with.

Well, a judge made the final decision after hearing both sides.

And we all know other instances where judges have come to the wrong decision; after all, they're fallible humans too.

Maybe :) but so are doctors so I think legal process is the better option.  It was left open for the doctors to take it back if they thought her condition had changed.

The parents are responsible for her though. They brought her into this world. When you have a baby you accept the fact that it might have disabilities. You can either go through the process of knowing upfront - amnio, CVS testing etc and dealing with the results - or you can take your chances and live with what happens. If you cannot support a child (disabled or not) for the rest of his or her days then you simply shouldn't have one!

This is just another case of a responsibility falling on the overburdoned NHS and tax payers wallet. They had her, they fought for her and they should now look after her - NO excuses!!

I don't know if Charlotte' problems could have been predicated I understood them to have resulted from a premature birth.  Are you saying, then, that only those that can afford to shoulder the care of a disabled child should have a child at all because of the possibilies?  What if the child suffers a trauma that disabled it some time after birth?  Should parents that can't cope and put healthy children into care pay all the expenses?  I really don't think much cost would have been saved by having her at home, knowing what input would still be required for such a severely disabled child.  Not that I think cost should be the consideration as to whether her life should be saved or not.  That one should be entirely based on the quality to be found in her life.

I didn't interpret Carla's post as in financial but in support as in , they choose to fight it they should support her and look after her.   Why fight for something them let it go.

Well taxpayers' pockets were mentioned ;) 

Because tax payers fund the support system - pay the NHS, pay the nurses, pay the benefits that the parents are on.

I really don't think the decisions on Charlotte's life should depend on whether her parents can financially supporting her or not that is why we have an NHS and a welfare system.

And thats where this country is going wrong. Did you happen to watch the programme on young mothers last week? The couple in a council house with 5 children, dad is only 20 now - had 1 a year since he was 15. On arrival of the 3rd he could no longer work. They get £1500 in benefits a month. Thats more than a lot of folk earn and they have to pay for everything out of it!!

But you would not want their situation to dictate whether you would give the Heimlich procedure to one of their children would you?

I just want people to reap what they sow. If they can't afford it or support it - don't do it. The NHS and benefits should be to help in times of crises, or unforseen circumstance. Its not a luxury, or a right.

yes BUT she said that, "I THINK" :-D because if the parents don't look after her then it will fall to the tax payers to look after the child. It is the looking after I see the issue with.  Yes it will add financial burden to the country but I honestly think the issue is that thay are now after all this hassle not prepared to look after her. AND I believe not prepared is the right wording.

Speaking as someone pregnant at the moment - if I were to give birth to a baby THAT premature with the chances of her having no quality of life in the future and that baby could not survive without several resucitations - I would go with the doctors advice and not resucitate. That is taking everything into consideration and being in possession of the facts. Had she been born and had the doctors not been there she would have died at that stage naturally.

Many premature babies that are supported at that stage do go on to have a good quality life though so it is always going to be a contentious issue.

I don't think so - not *that* premature. She suffered multiple organ failure. I think the cut off point for a baby to be viable and stand a chance is 28 weeks - and that is very early. Charlotte was born at 26 weeks.

Statistically, a minority of children born that early go on to have no problems - most have, at least, some problems :(

Daisy

Many of those with problems are ones that still give a good quality of life they are certainly not all as severely affected as Charlotte, so do we sacrifice the chances of the minority?

> so do we sacrifice the chances of the minority

Sometimes - IMO

Daisy

Which times?  It is my understanding that they cannot predict who will do well and who won't?

Nothing to do with predicting - I just think that lines have to be drawn. Where will it end ?? When the NHS can't afford to pay for basic nursing care and cleaning in wards, why are we paying HUGE sums of money to keep alive very premature babies and the, sometimes, lifelong care that they will need ?? That's ignoring the poor quality of life that some will have.

Daisy

The parents are responsible for her though. They brought her into this world. When you have a baby you accept the fact that it might have disabilities. You can either go through the process of knowing upfront - amnio, CVS testing etc and dealing with the results - or you can take your chances and live with what happens. If you cannot support a child (disabled or not) for the rest of his or her days then you simply shouldn't have one!

This is just another case of a responsibility falling on the overburdoned NHS and tax payers wallet. They had her, they fought for her and they should now look after her - NO excuses!!

Ditto Carla.

My best friend is a community paediatric nurse.  Her job is to help parents manage the care of children like this at home.  The management invariably involves a team of carers plus trained input from herself such as the giving of IV antibiobics, care of Hickman lines etc.  Whilst it would be nice to live in a family atmosphere I don't think the family or the local health authority would have been under any illusion that family care would completely take over from health authority care.   I really think this article is a red herring.  The issues surrounding Charlotte are ethical ones that really don't depend on whether her parents feel able to offer her a place in their home or not, after all many children go into care because their parents can't cope.  I doubt any additional costs of Charlotte being in hospital will be greater than the cost of children in full health being in care and I really don't think whether her parents could cope or not should have had any bearing on whether the judge thought she was entitled to be resusitated.

I'm not sure that she would have ever been able to live at home anyway.  I understand she had only ever gone home for visits.  Whether she should be resusitated is a seperate issue to whether she could ever be cared for at home, in my opinion, would we say that nobody that needs constant specialist care should be resusitated?  I don't think cost should come into either it should be based purely on benefit or not to the individual. 

No, she's ready to go home now. Thats why she's now up for fostering.

Such a shame the parents arn't being given the support they need.  It must be so hard on them to go though this with there little girl but now can't at all look after her and arn't getting the help.

Poor girl that she's not being offerd the best life she can wih her parent(s) and has no-one else to look after her :(