richca@teklds.UUCP (Rich Caldwell) (03/01/85)
There has been much talk about the Vet who commited infanticide.
The original situation of the Vet gave a meager amount of information and
not really enough to be able to judge for or against him without falling
back upon each of our own gut reactions based on our beliefs and morality.
Allow me to relive my singular experience with you.
Our second baby was born in 1980 with spina bifada (open spine) and extreme
hydracephalis (its head was about 2 and 1/2 times the size of a normal
baby at birth). We had no realization of any problems until the obstetrician
requested an xray at the time of labor. We were told that there would
have to be a caesarian.
The doctor came to me first and prepared me informing me of the above
problem in standard medical jargon. It took a while for the realization
of our situation to hit me.
The baby was possibly going to need two operations and we (together) were
suppose to decide whether to go on with them. One possible operation was
to close the spine to prevent infection and eventual death. The other
possible operation was to place a shunt tube from the brain to the spine
to prevent the head from getting any bigger. The shunt operation would
help to prevent any more discomfort to the baby and make the baby easier
for the nursing staff to handle.
There was pressure from some of the nursing staff to think favorably of
the operations and there was to be a cat scan done of the brain and a
consultation with a neurosurgeon.
In addition to the shock of this, I also had a feeling that our "right"
as the baby's parents to decide its fate was tenuous at best and could
possibly have been taken away by the hospital staff at any time. (here
is a point that can be argued about some parents being competant and
some being not---should laws state a definite course, or allow for discre-
tionary appeal with overrule or upholding.)
The cat scan showed only wisps of brain material in the brain fluid and
the neurosurgeon said the baby would have no self-awareness, and that it
would be incontinent with no use of the lower limbs and could still live
a very short time or up to twenty years even if the spine were closed.
I agreed to the shunt operation and not to the closing of the spine.
The baby was transfered to another hospitals special nursing facility.
We named her and had her babtized at my wife's request.
We held her and fed her from a bottle although her feeding reflexes
were an on and off type of occurance.
I believe the nutrients in her formula were reduced after being there
three weeks, but I did not voice any objections at the time.
We went to see her once or twice a week for a month until she died.
In spite of the emotional pain and grief, We consider ourselves lucky in
comparison to others who have experienced similar or worse for longer
duration. The emotional toll, the economic toll, and the time cost
of a much extended life for Barbara possibly and even probably would
have broken our family. In addition, had there been any interference
such as experieced by those involved in the baby Jane Doe case in
New York, I would not have received it gracefully.
If we had known in advance we would have opted for abortion,
even now, after we have seen and have been moved by "Silent Scream".
Could I have done what that Vet did? Definitely not the way he did, but
I try to imagine my performing some sort of a mercy killing
and I can also imagine the shock of realization of the act and the shame
being the only one to know and the shame of everyone knowing if it was
found out. It would be a total nightmare.
And yet in this case I feel that mercy killing would have been indicated.
If there were no one else, no agency to turn to, I might have felt
obligated by default to perform a mercy killing.
Perhaps my decision was a mercy killing, but I don't feel like a murderer.
Some have said that to make life or death decisions is to play God and
that this is wrong; that it is wrong to drawn up criteria or guidelines
for the making of such decisions because this can be perverted by
bigots into haulocausts of any size. These perversions can occur under
any circumstances if there is no system of checks and balances to watch
for and prevent them.
Everyone draws moral lines between what is acceptable and what is not.
You can have a heinous murderer on one end of the spectrum and a strict
vegetarian on the other end and both can religiously emphasis the good of
his morality.
When life and death decisions occur it is usually better if they are made
with some deliberation than if the situation is allowed to resolve itself.
(reference triage, war, life boat overcrowding, and so on)
All situations will resolve themselves even if the solution is a poor
one. (reference Thomas Maltheus' population checks of war, sickness, and
starvation)
I guess my point is that this is a specific case and should be judged
on its own merit. Any general argument for abortion or mercy killing
can be shot down by specific examples just as any general argument
against abortion or mercy killing can be shot down the same way.
There is no blanket rule or law or moral stand that would be right in
every case.
Richard Caldwell
tektronix!teklds!richca
If you haven't experienced it can you really understand?
Emotional flames or recriminations are not welcome,
but thoughtful differences of opinion are. R.