Legal battle over brain-damaged baby prompts Maine bill

[Omaha Steve]

Source: AP

By ALANNA DURKIN

AUGUSTA, Maine (AP) — Lawmakers in Maine are considering changes to the state's policies regarding life-sustaining treatment for minors after an 18-year-old mother went to court last year to fight a state-imposed do-not-resuscitate order on her brain-damaged daughter.

Legislators are examining a bill that would prevent the state from withholding life-sustaining treatment for a child in its custody unless the parent's rights have been officially terminated. Supporters say that will protect parental sovereignty and clarify a legal grey area that drew national attention last year when Virginia Trask sued the state after a child welfare agency won a judge's approval to make medical decisions on behalf of her daughter.

"The hope of this bill is that it will provide guidance to the judges and attorneys and to the various parties involved so that there is no question about what proper legal procedures needs to be followed in the event that the department feels this step needs to be taken," said attorney Scott Hess, who represented Trask in that case.

Arthur Caplan, director of the division of medical ethics at NYU Langone Medical Center, said he's unaware of any states with similar laws. But he said he believes that affirming parents' right to make medical decisions for their child is the right move.

FULL story at link.


Read more: http://bigstory.ap.org/article/b19d6902368d495b99fe9ffc7c86fe54/legal-battle-over-brain-damaged-baby-prompts-maine-bill`

[erronis]

1. Hey, finally something positive about Maine!

It seems like the blowhard governor has totally ground that state back into the Jurassic epoch (that's when good christians lived with the dinosaurs.)

Being only one state removed from Maine (and New Hampshire is its name) there's frequently a feeling that what happens in one state will happen in the other.

Maybe LePage (glue?) hasn't gotten word of this.

[enlightenment]

2. It isn't love

to prolong the agony of her severely brain-damaged child.

From September of last year:

Nonetheless the injuries are severe: The girl is blind and cannot hear, requires a feeding tube because she cannot suck or swallow and will never advance beyond an "early infantile level," according to court documents.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/maine-governor-do-not-resuscitate-order-wrong

From October (at the trial of the father who shook the infant):

Aleah can’t see, can’t hear, is a quadriplegic who has frequent seizures and is “in pain 24/7,” Maloney said.
<snip>
The baby is now 16 months old and living in a foster home, according to court filings.

http://www.centralmaine.com/2014/10/10/windsor-man-expected-to-enter-a-plea-of-assault-on-infant/


I am very sorry that this happened - no child should have to suffer abuse, be it unintentional or not. That said, the young mother is in a perfect position to delude herself as to her daughter's condition and that is what she is doing. She isn't caring for the child 24/7 - she no doubt visits, perhaps every day, but she isn't seeing the truth of what has occurred.

No one is saying the child should be euthanized - simply that she should be allowed to die when her body inevitably begins to fail. Refusing that is selfish, and while I understand the mother's grief, her status as the mother shouldn't give her the absolute right to decide. The child is a ward of the state, being cared for by others even if parental rights have not been terminated.

The needs of the child - in this case, the need to be allowed to die - trump the needs of the mother to persist in her grief-induced delusion.

[sybylla]

3. Exactly.

This traumatized baby needs compassion and the freedom to die when her time comes.

[magical thyme]

5. nothing in any article I can find suggests the state intends to remove a feeding tube and starve her

or "euthanize" her.

The baby was in a coma with devastating brain damage, so taken off a respirator and put in her mother's arms to die because her mother had a dnr on her because it didn't look like she would come out of the coma or ever breathe on her own.

That she came out of the coma and started breathing on her own was totally unexpected. But she has been breathing on her own ever since, so the mother removed the dnr.

The state has moved to re-instate the dnr, ie if she falls into a coma or stops breathing on her own or suffers heart failure, etc., then she will not be resuscitated. I did find one article that stated specifically that they simply want to avoid a series of cascading events -- which is the normal reason that people sign DNRs.

"The only difference is she is not blind or deaf. Nor is she in pain 24/7. (Wonder how they know that?)"

1. those are some significant differences.
2. as to how do they know she's in pain, how does anybody know that a baby is in pain? Maybe by her crying. Maybe she doesn't show "joy when she is being cuddled." Maybe she cries when she is cuddled. Maybe she cries any time she is touched. Maybe she never smiles or giggles, but only cries.

[jwirr]

6. My point is that the state should never be the one to determine who lives and dies outside of a

criminal case. This should be handled by either the mother or an independent guardian if the mother cannot. Requiring a DNR is another story. And if that is all they are asking they are right to do that. Many government programs require a DNR to be eligible.

None of the rest of it matters except to the individual case - I used my daughter because I have been through this in her lifetime. I had to make these decisions. And as an advocate for persons like my daughter I have helped others make them for their children. I have also sat on an independent board to make the decision for a child who had no parents or guardian to make it for her. The courts appointed us to that board because they knew we were familiar with her and there were enough of us that we would not just accept the inevitable.

I happen to think that the mother should reinstate the DNR because if anything happens the hospital is required to do everything they can to keep her alive if the mother is not there to say differently.

[magical thyme]

8. you specifically stated that the state intended to remove the feeding tube and starve her to death

to "euthanize" her.

I am simply pointing out that nowhere has the state tried to remove the feeding tube and starve her, and nothing published says that is their goal or intent.

Their sole intent is to reinstate the DNR. Although the state never terminated the mother's parental rights, the reason the baby was removed was because there were signs of abuse and the mother was deemed unfit to care for her.

[enlightenment]

7. I appreciate your feelings -

however, to make this statement:
"That statement of the courts defining the child perfectly defines my daughter" and then proceed to explain that no, it really doesn't define your daughter (not blind, not deaf, not in constant pain, not requiring life support for most of her life) is pretty bizarre.

To suggest that I am "insinuating" anything, given the VAST difference between your child and the infant who was severely and permanently damaged by abuse, is beyond ridiculous.

Get a hold of yourself and try doing a little research instead of engaging in knee-jerk responses. The state was in NO WAY planning on euthanizing her - they wanted the mother to sign a DNR. You have one for your own child.

This child is blind and deaf. She is a quadriplegic. She suffers spastic seizures that are controlled by medication. She has a feeding tube because she is incapable of swallowing, not because she has digestive issues. She requires round the clock care, just to keep her body alive.

She is in no way like your daughter.

[deek]

11. I get what you are saying

I, too, am the parent of an adult child with severe multiple disabilities and medical issues. Be prepared for harsh criticism from some here who have never loved a soul trapped within such a body. Many can not imagine such a personhood. You will not help them understand nor change their mind. I learned to shut up during the Terri Shiavo murder.

Peace.

[MisterP]

9. well, if that's all the case, why not euthanasia?

[enlightenment]

10. I suspect you

know the answer to that question.