That’s essentially what the letter from the hospital stated to the parents of a very ill three month old baby:
We must put the interests of your son foremost and it is in his best interests to discontinue mechanical ventilation support.
I can’t imagine being a mother and receiving a letter from the hospital tasked with cari
ng for my precious little one, notifying me that they have decided to take him off life support. Not a letter requesting that my husband and I consider this option, but a letter telling us that doctors and hospital administrators have made the decision already.
Isaiah was born October 24, after a long 40 hour delivery. The umbilical cord had been wrapped around his neck, depriving him of oxygen. The baby was transferred to a children’s hospital in Edmonton and there declared brain dead, incapable of any development. He has been on a ventilator ever since.
However, Isaiah has been busy beating the odds and the medical opinion. He was only expected to live a few days and his parents were told that he would “not grow, move, or urinate independently.” In a court affidavit, his mother explained that,
… he has grown to almost eleven pounds, urinates on his own, dilates his pupils, and opens his eyes on a daily basis.
“Isaiah has moved his hands, arms and feet with increasing frequency and has arched his back,” she wrote. “He has brought his knees to his abdomen and has lifted his ankles up off the bed without touch or stimulation.” (watch him move here)
Given this progress, they were surprised to receive the above-mentioned letter. The young parents, Isaac and Rebecka May, went to court on Tuesday to request a 90-day injunction against the order to take their son off life support. The Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench granted them one week to find an independent expert to determine the extent of Isaiah’s brain damage.
The fight for Isaiah’s life continues as the family seeks to find a medical expert when … isn’t the issue of “who decides” a legal question?
When hospital administrators and doctors are charged with the decision to end life, what purpose is served by current laws that recognize parental rights?
Isaac and Rebecka are already having to fight to simply have Isaiah’s health monitored. Now they have to fight a legal battle and come up with medical evidence in order to prove that he’s worthy of being granted more time.
Is it unreasonable to give a baby who is proving his doctors wrong additional time? His parents love him and are prepared to live with the stress of waiting, watching and wondering. Until recently, it seems, we valued life in this country.
Who decides the value of a life? Henri Nouwen left a teaching position at Harvard to spend the rest of his life with the developmentally disabled where he learned about life from his special needs housemates. Jean Vanier founded L’Arche, where he has spent his life living with and loving the disabled. He has explained that he didn’t found L’Arche because he sought to help “a few ‘unfortunate’ people” who were left in depressing and violent facilities but because of his belief that every individual has a place in society. In his own words,
My life in L’Arche is part of a larger struggle for peace. During the 1960s, Martin Luther King Jr. rose up to bring justice to the blacks of the United States. His dream of brother- and sisterhood flowed from his deep belief that every human being is important and valuable, that everyone has a right to be free and have a place in our society. This dream flowed from his faith in Jesus and the Gospel message: each person is important, each person is a child of God. [my emphasis]
Who decides the value of a life?
The current law seems to indicate the parents decide, unless the parents’ decision is harmful to the life of the child. Whose decision is more harmful to Isaiah’s young life? That of his parents? That of those who authored the fateful letter? That of the judge in this case remains to be heard.
UPDATE, January 26, 2010
Mark Pickup made some practical suggestions as to measures Canadians can take.