The baby was released from hospice. Perhaps she wasn't going to die in the short term?...
It doesn't make any sense. Nobody torches a baby who they believe died from natural causes, especially when they are on record as being terminally ill. I believe this scenero can be discounted right out of the gate. What does that leave us with? Mom either thought the baby was dead because she intentionally or negligently did something to cause her death, or mom knowingly burned her living, breathing baby. Either one of those scenerios adds up to murder charges to me. There are different levels of legal murder, and she needs to be charged with one of them. IMO.
What an unfair hand this poor baby was dealt. Life is not fair.
And again, they keep saying this baby was going to die. When most people with this syndrome live 18+ years. Requiring constant care and profoundly retarded, but most of people with this syndrome live for years. So why do they keep saying this child was going to die soon?
I am assuming they know more about this baby, and her condition than just the syndrome in general.
Is hospice released when there is nothing else they can do? Or for example when home health care is doing a certain amount of hours in the home? Maybe Home health care offered more services at home then hospice or more hours.
I am not sure about all that but I cannot see a baby who was to improve being on morphine in the home. My kid has only ever been sent home with Codine (cancer) Everything else was given at an office.
I am not sure what exactly you mean by "improve?" I don't see anyone saying that children with diagnosis are going to do well. They will require constant care and remain profoundly developmentally retarded. There is no cure for this condition.
I am not sure what exactly you mean by "improve?" I don't see anyone saying that children with diagnosis are going to do well. They will require constant care and remain profoundly developmentally retarded. There is no cure for this condition.
By saying improve in my post above, I only meant might that the childs health condition could have improved . That was stated by me in context of hospice being removed. I didnt say cured. It might not have the reason. Based on the articles I read I was guessing at why hospice was rmoved while speculating at possible others.
Morphine is for pain management, correct? That can not be good. I only hope the child was mercifully euthanized and I'll take some measure of comfort thinking about how the child is no longer in pain or suffering from what sounds to be like a horrific diagnosis
Hospice send the child home I presume to be cared for at home. This is a chromosomal condition but much more severe than Down syndrome. From reading about it, the best in term of development one can hope for is that the child with this condition might be able to say a few words. But that doesn't necessarily mean the child was going to die any time soon, provided the child was given constant medical care. Some of these children do die in the first two years of life, but the ones who don't can live for years, some into their thirties.
According to some articles she was actually alive when burned. If you think that is merciful, well...I don't know what to tell ya.
Hospice does not send people home. The fact that hospice was ever working with this child is very telling about the babys health condition reguardless of what her chromosomal condition may or may not imply. Hospice is exclusively end of life care and mostly an in home service.
http://www.helpguide.org/elder/hospice_care.htm
How exactly does a hospice "not send people home" when we have articles saying this particular child was released from hospice to live with her mother?