Parents Starve to Death Four-year-old Dylan
Friday December 23rd, 2005. This is show # 255.
BEST QUOTE OF THE SHOW:
Friday December 23rd, 2005. This is show # 255.
BEST QUOTE OF THE SHOW:
Parents Starve to Death Four-year-old Dylan
- Thread starter Jefferson
- Start date
- Status
This is a disgusting and horrifying story. Whatever criticisms people levy at Mr. Enyart, I will always appreciate his passion for people like Dylan.
At the supermarket nearby, there are 3 or 4 employees who are to a greater or lesser extent mentally retarded. These people are happy, polite, and good workers. They are self supporting, and at least some of them live on their own. For the Planned Parenthood crowd, these people constitute a burden on society. I, on the other hand, consider them a blessing, and the Planned Parenthood crowd the burden.
At the supermarket nearby, there are 3 or 4 employees who are to a greater or lesser extent mentally retarded. These people are happy, polite, and good workers. They are self supporting, and at least some of them live on their own. For the Planned Parenthood crowd, these people constitute a burden on society. I, on the other hand, consider them a blessing, and the Planned Parenthood crowd the burden.
Could Dylan be fed like a normal child?
Could Dylan be fed like a normal child?
Would it make a difference if Dylan could not eat? Could he be bottle fed like a baby or spoon fed like an infant? Could he swallow? Is this different than feeding through a tube?
I think that there IS a difference between starving someone and choosing not to tube feed.
Could Dylan be fed like a normal child?
docrob57 said:
Would it make a difference if Dylan could not eat? Could he be bottle fed like a baby or spoon fed like an infant? Could he swallow? Is this different than feeding through a tube?
I think that there IS a difference between starving someone and choosing not to tube feed.
Leave out the word "tube" and this little legalism falls apart.
Granite said:
The article, which is sympathetic to the parents, is here.
http://www.denverpost.com/search/ci_3319527
JoyfulRook
New member
Another poor Terri Schiavo.
JoyfulRook
New member
As in:
1. They were both innocent and were murdered.
2. They were both tube-fed and mentally disabled.
1. They were both innocent and were murdered.
2. They were both tube-fed and mentally disabled.
Tube feeding
Tube feeding
You are right. It is technically simple. I think it is an appropriate intervention for many people however I'm not sure that it is appropriate to use it for the sole purpose of prolonging life.
There is a difference between craving a bacon double cheese burger which is denied to you and not getting artificial nutrition. Much of our sense of hunger is closely linked to the palliative/pleasure we desire and derive from food. Can we really equate withhold a tube feeding from someone who is (practically) unresponsive with what a normal person experiences when they are starving. It just doesn't seem the same to me.
Please be patient with me. Although I am a medical professional I'm really trying to figure all this out and I'm not attempting to advance a predetermined position.
Tube feeding
docrob57 said:
You are right. It is technically simple. I think it is an appropriate intervention for many people however I'm not sure that it is appropriate to use it for the sole purpose of prolonging life.
There is a difference between craving a bacon double cheese burger which is denied to you and not getting artificial nutrition. Much of our sense of hunger is closely linked to the palliative/pleasure we desire and derive from food. Can we really equate withhold a tube feeding from someone who is (practically) unresponsive with what a normal person experiences when they are starving. It just doesn't seem the same to me.
Please be patient with me. Although I am a medical professional I'm really trying to figure all this out and I'm not attempting to advance a predetermined position.
What other purpose would it have?Louis said:
Should "quality of life" (insert your own definition of that) be a determining factor in a life-or-death situation?
I believe you're on a slippery-slope argument for euthanasia. Actually it is the same argument (not really a human being) used for abortion. If one can approve of abortion, one should have no problem accepting euthanasia.
Last edited:
Technology
Technology
Technology has made a lot of things possible.
Before the tube was invented this would not have been an issue. Just because we have the ability to do certain things to prolong life does not necessarily mean that we should do so. Are we obligated to exercise every technological option in order to keep people alive as long as possible? Personally I would not want this done to me if I were in the patient's position. Maybe I'm not thinking straight...
Should "quality of life" (insert your own definition of that) a determining factor in a life-or-death situation?
I believe you're on a slippery-slope argument for euthanasia. Actually it is the same argument (not really a human being) used for abortion. If one can approve of abortion, one should have no problem accepting euthanasia.[/QUOTE]
Technology
Technology has made a lot of things possible.
Before the tube was invented this would not have been an issue. Just because we have the ability to do certain things to prolong life does not necessarily mean that we should do so. Are we obligated to exercise every technological option in order to keep people alive as long as possible? Personally I would not want this done to me if I were in the patient's position. Maybe I'm not thinking straight...
Should "quality of life" (insert your own definition of that) a determining factor in a life-or-death situation?
I believe you're on a slippery-slope argument for euthanasia. Actually it is the same argument (not really a human being) used for abortion. If one can approve of abortion, one should have no problem accepting euthanasia.[/QUOTE]
- Status