Battle for Baby Joseph's Life Continues: 'Quality' vs. Sanctity of Life

Who will win the battle over Joseph's life?

London Health Sciences Centre, the hospital keeping Baby Joseph, said they would allow him to go home only on the breathing tube - which they would remove, causing him to die almost immediately.  His parents have refused the hospital's "offer."  LHSC acts as though they have all power and authority to determine the day and hour of a baby's death and also the manner in which he dies.

WASHINGTON, D.C. (Catholic Online) - The hospital where Baby Joseph is being kept continues to demonstrate a greater interest in control and carrying out their own will than anything else.

Today the update to Baby Joseph's life-and-death battle produced headlines like this: "Hospital Allows Baby Joseph to Die at Home."  The hospital said they would allow his parents (how generous of them) to take their son home to die, but only while still on the breathing tube, and once home they would remove the tube and Joseph would die almost immediately.  They refuse to do the tracheotomy and allow Joseph the possibility of weeks or months longer to live at home.  They are insisting he die; either in their hospital or immediately upon returning home.

They are not God, yet they act as though they have all power and authority to determine the day and hour of a baby's death and also the manner in which he dies.

London Health Sciences Centre defends their decision by saying the tracheotomy is "invasive" and "not a palliative procedure."  They said it is "not indicated for Baby Joseph because he has a progressive neurodegenerative disease that is fatal."

Never mind that they cannot identify that progressive neurodegenerative disease and give Joseph a real diagnosis.  They have concluded that it is certainly fatal, and thus, the only care Joseph deserves is what they deem "palliative."

As Fr. Frank Pavone said today in a FOX News interview, that is a value assessment, not a medical assessment.  Doctors and courts have no right to make such a value judgment about a person's life.  Joseph's parents are not in denial of their son's approaching death; they have faced this tragedy before and they know what's coming.  They have every right to walk this final road with their child for every moment God gives Joseph, and they should not have to fight off a court or hospital that wants to abruptly end his life.

There's at least one doctor who's speaking out in disagreement with the conclusion of LHSC.  Ohio neonatologist Dr. Paul Byrne says, "If the baby is stable otherwise, and has a tracheotomy, then the baby can be taken care of at home."  Dr. Byrne told LifeSiteNews that "there's no case" when a child is on a ventilator and a tracheotomy wouldn't be indicated.

Dr. Byrne went on to say that the attempt to remove Joseph's breathing tube is "terrible, absolutely terrible," and insists that in his fifty years in neonatology he has never once removed a child's ventilator.  "I've never seen a time to turn off a ventilator.  If a baby has a disease process that's so bad that they're going to die, then they die on the ventilator anyway.  You don't have to stop the ventilator."

Joseph's doctor has admitted that the tracheotomy would likely prolong Joseph's life but then has the brass to say they will not do it because "in our view it would not result in improvement of well-being and could reduce quality of life."

How is his quality of life improved by removing his breathing tube and forcing his death?  How is his well-being improved by suffocating him?  Who are they to decide that he does not deserve 2 weeks or 2 months or more at home with his family?  When did doctors become the sole arbiters of well-being?

"Quality of life" is a dangerous concept and a convenient excuse for those who want to justify their decision to end someone else's life.  Why should doctors and courts have the power to decide whose quality of life has fallen below the required standard? 

"Quality of life" was the banner under which Terri Schiavo was slowly executed.  She needed no machines or complicated medical interventions to sustain her, so her death was brought on by dehydration and starvation.  She was inhumanely killed in a way no one in America would be allowed to treat a dog.  But her life wasn't "quality" enough, so she was ordered by our courts to die, even though she had a loving family who desperately wanted to care for her.

Now the same terrible fate seems ready to be forced on this child.  Once again, doctors have decided what condition of life is acceptable, and who deserves treatment versus palliative care.  Once again, courts have seized upon doctors' pronouncements about a patient's quality of life in order to usurp parents' authority and force their own will.

It's worth asking the question, don't you think:  What if these doctors are wrong?  Since they cannot even say for sure what is wrong with Joseph, is it not even possible that their conclusions may be faulty?  His parents are not expecting extraordinary measures and they realize the odds of their son surviving are not in his favor.  But why, why are his doctors so bent on mandating this child's death?

The Maraachli family has rejected the hospital's "offer."  They are still trying to find a hospital in the U.S. willing to do the tracheotomy so they can take their son home.  Fr. Pavone says they are in discussions with several hospitals and there is a plane standing by to transport Joseph as soon as they are successful.

The Office of the Public Guardian in Ontario could still decide at any moment to name a legal guardian other than his parents in order to have Joseph's breathing tube removed immediately.

Who will win the battle over Joseph's life?

-----

Jennifer Hartline is a contributing writer for Catholic Online.

---

'Help Give every Student and Teacher FREE resources for a world-class Moral Catholic Education'

Copyright 2021 - Distributed by Catholic Online