Judges overrule parents wish to keep baby alive

IN this ChgoTrib article, it is reported that the court has more power than parents, in deciding the welfare of a developing baby.

This premature baby requires heroic measures to keep her alive, and the parents, being strong believers that life must be preserved regardless of "quality", have supported those measures. The judge, however, decreed that, when the baby stops breathing again (as she has done 3 times, so far), the doctors are instructed to allow the baby to die.

This infant has nearly died several times already from lack of prenatal development to her heart, lungs, and other vital organs.

While there are similarities between the Schiavo case and this one (the parents are overruled by courts, the brain had potential for partial recovery/development), htere are FUNDAMENTAL differences: This baby is not functioning on her own, requiring merely food to maintain her existence. She has come close to death at least 3 times already, and will likely die anyway, in the none-too-distant future, due to her chronic respiratory disease and supremely slow neurological development. The court order is not that she be denied food and forced to die slowly over the course of days or weeks. The order is simply to not force a breathing tube back into the infant, the next time she stops breathing on her own. And it comes after doctors advised this would be the least cruel treatment for the baby. Can anybody truly say that starvation and dehydration were less cruel than having a feeding tube inserted?

However, knowing how it feels to struggle for breath, and appreciating the opportunities to continue afterward, I hope her parents win on appeal. Each life and every breath is precious, no matter how painful.