Parents Sue The Hospital For NOT Dehydrating Their Baby To Death

To say this is monstrously outrageous is to say nothing.

MONTREAL, March 17, 2009 (LifeSIteNews.com) - A Quebec couple have launched a $3.5-million lawsuit against Montreal Children's Hospital for allegedly putting their infant daughter back on artificial food and hydration without their approval.
...
According to the lawsuit Laurendeau and Phebe's father, Stephane Mantha, were told by doctors that their daughter had little chance for survival and advised them to take her off respiratory support and hydration, to which they agreed.

After withdrawing respiratory support, however, it was found that Phebe could breathe on her own, and the hospital's ethics committee reversed the parents' decision to withhold fluids and food from their baby.

More >>>

So, first we have the doctors jumping to an erroneous conclusion that the baby wouldn't last and recommending to have the baby starved and dehydrated to death as an act of "compassion". (We stopped using the death penalty of fear that a wrongful conviction could have resulted in an innocent person being executed, but executing an innocent baby following a wrongful speedy diagnosis is apparently nowhere near that disturbing.)

Then, once the doctors notice their mistake (thanks God they actually noticed it!) and once they let the baby live, they end up being sued by the girl's parents for not following through with their original plan to get the baby starved and dehydrated to death. They say the baby was allowed to stay alive without their consent. Now, shall I remind you that we're talking about a born girl, one who is recognized as a person and as a Canadian citizen by every law and every Supreme Court ruling there is? Doesn't she (I repeat - a born girl) have a right to life, just like any of us?

Among other things, the baby's parents complain that it takes too much time and energy to care for a disabled baby girl, that the girl's mother had to quit her job to care for the baby. But the hospital did offer them an opportunity to let the baby be placed in protective custody, didn't it? If the parents made the decision to take their daughter home and raise her, disabled or not, shouldn't they be the ones responsible for their own decision? Or do they believe that the hospital is at fault for merely making them choose? Do they believe that refusing to put a baby to death makes hospital responsible for all the problems the parents may face raising that baby?

Right to life? Forget it! Personal responsibility? Ditto! Common sense? Long gone. That's a world inside out, indeed.

To make things worse, this might be just the beginning. Imagine, what could be the consequences if the court rules against the hospital. Imagine the pressure on the doctors, some of whom simply won't dare to go against the decision made by their superiors or by the patient's relatives and save the life which could still be saved. If they actually maintain the right to save lives; if the ruling against the hospital doesn't become a precedent setting case that would eventually force the doctors to euthanize patients irregardless of the medical condition - just because the patients' relatives or legal guardians demand so...

Terrible. Scary. And yes, monstrously outrageous.