I watched Vinnie on HLN this afternoon and he had a heatrbreaking story about a 21 month old girl:
"
Family fights for euthanasia law for terminal patients:
At 19 months old, Natalie Newton was a busy, happy toddler until September, when those busy little feet took her into the family's backyard pool near Corpus Christi. Natty, as the family likes to call her, was revived...
‘Withholding nutrition' was the only option that Texas law allowed.
"We stopped the feeding and starved her to death," he said. Her death took eight days.
"That's just the most cruel, inhumane thing," Newton said. "We euthanize dogs for humanity reasons. We euthanize serial killers, but a 21-month-old baby has to starve for almost nine days?"
Newton says his family has been traumatized by the process and is traveling the state sharing her story in the hope of forcing change for Natty's sake."
--------------------------------------------------------------------
It's something horrible to have to go through, but she died a "natural death" and according to what I have learned when I took college courses in gerontology, the person does not suffer.
"the process is quite peaceful, and no evidence exists that they are aware of the process....
Caregivers of dying people and patients themselves have reported that those who are near death are seldom hungry, and if feelings of hunger occur, small amounts of food by mouth are usually all the patient wants. The most common complaint is dry mouth, a condition that can be alleviated by sips of water, ice chips, lubricants for the lips, or other appropriate oral care. On rare occasions, patients may experience twitching or muscle spasms when hydration is withdrawn, but these symptoms can be managed easily with sedatives..
Medical observation has found no indications that patients who have suffered massive brain damage causing permanent unconsciousness experience any pain when artificial nutrition and hydration is stopped.
Reports from conscious dying patients indicate that they increasingly experience a lack of appetite and thirst. In fact, it is common for competent hospice patients and those suffering acute illness to refuse food and water. Dry mouth is the only commonly reported symptom, and it can be managed without resort to tubes.
Animal studies indicate that the body responds to a lack of food by increasing the production of natural pain relievers (endorphins). However, if food is supplied, the body stops producing endorphins and the benefit of this natural pain relief is lost.
Artificial nutrition and hydration is largely a 20th century technology. Historically, coma was nature's way of relieving the suffering of people who were dying. However, the provision of artificial nutrition and hydration may prevent the development of this natural anesthesia in some cases."
http://www.webmd.com/balance/questi...trition-hydration-end-of-life-decision-making
Euthanasia is not the right thing to do in this case, IMO. I did a thesis on euthanasia and I do believe that people have a right to a "good death", but it needs to come from the person who wishes it- by way of living wills and such- not by other people. In the case of the 21 month old, she could not have given that consent, of course, because of her age, but her parents have no right to euthanize their daughter, IMO. The little child is a person and not a pet, and certainly not a serial killer. A "natural death" was the "right" thing to do in this case. Years ago, before there was all the lifesaving things that are done to people these days, this would have been the way she would have died.
(This is all my opinion and I do grieve with the parents for their little girl.)
hwow:
