Quote:
Originally Posted by Kizzy
I just can't see the issue.. If the funding is secured why can this not be an option?
There is no logic behind it other than 'it hasn't been done' 'it may not work'
|
To be brutally frank; it's because it might "save his life" but will leave him severely brain-damaged and potentially in constant pain for several years. The brain-damage isn't a "maybe" - it is already present and cannot be reversed - the treatment would only have halted it where it was. He isn't just disabled, it would be a case of unresponsive wakefulness and the chances of any improvement there are absolutely miniscule. Even if response was gained it wouldn't be at the level of meaningful interaction.
Essentially... 99.9% chance that it would simply be keeping him alive and suffering for the benefit of others. I can empathise with how painful the alternative is for a parent, but it's still not an ethical thing to do, and that's why even the doctors who offer the treatment had reservations in this case (though they would likely still have done it for the cold hard
$$$).
Of course, no parent can be expected to make this sort of decision if they're being told there's even a 0.0001% chance, and that's why I think it was in this case right for his doctors to step in. They obviously don't "want" him to die, this isn't a case of saving them money or anything as the funds had been raised, literally the only reason they would have blocked it is on ethical grounds.