So Sad -

[Donna Thomson]

A new blog post - http://www.donnathomson.com/2012/08/...gic-story.html

[andromeda31]

Wow! A fascinating article (the original article you linked to)...I think I will be thinking about that for the rest of the day and then some. On his blog, he commented that now, he feels the parents should be told, but that he would encourage them not to see the child. Horrifying how they 'experiemented' on the child though, with tying off the extra fingers. I do not agree with that at all. He described how the child felt the pain, well duh! I agree with what you said Donna about better communication regarding palliative concerns at birth. I know our experience was horrible and could have been done so differently (and better). One would think there would be protocols in place for such tragic events....ie bring in the social workers and doctors and meet with parents, provide good explanations of prognosis and explore together all options/outcomes. I complain all the time how poor, even now, the communication at the hospital is. It took 2 years for me to get hooked up with the palliative team...and I had called and called and asked. I can't imagine how it is for people who are less persistant. I don't think smothering the infant is right though either...like you said, a very sad situation....

Lisa O.

[Donna Thomson]

I am so sorry that your birth experience with Caitlin was so painful and difficult, Lisa. And yes, every hospital should have a palliative team in place ready to meet with parents to assist in making those crucial first medical decisions (and those decisions that come after of course too). So sad for everyone and clearly this doctor is haunted years later.

[Earth Mother 2 Angels]

((((((Donna & Lisa))))))

While taking into account that this incident occurred over 50 years ago, an era with which I am familiar, I still find this doctor's attitude disconcerting.

Although he protests that this baby was not a baby, this baby was a human being. The infant wasn't a cat or a dog, or an alien being, or a monster. The infant had enough brain cells to feel pain, to cry, and to live without nutrition or fluids for several days. The infant was born with human parts, and most likely had a gender, which the doctor doesn't mention.

The doctor titled his article, "Cyclops Child." CHILD. He also refers to the infant as a child, but generally as "it." Nonetheless, he did recognize that this infant was a "child," a human being, at least in the composition of his telling of the story.

The doctor sets himself up as the decider of all things ~ whether the parents should be told about their child, how much they should be told, whether they should be prevented from seeing and holding their child, and whether they should be consulted on how the child should be treated or allowed to perish.

At the end, 5 decades later, the doctor states:

"I knew then, and I still think now, that the right thing to do would have been to kill that baby. It wasn’t really a baby; it just sounded like a baby—that's what I tell myself. But I would like to stop thinking about it."

This doctor lost all credibility and every ounce of my sympathy for him, with his final sentences.

THE RIGHT THING TO DO would have been to inform the parents that their infant child was born with severe deformities and that the child's prognosis was dire with a life expectancy of a few hours to a few days, depending upon what the parents chose for their child.

The parents should be counseled gently about their baby's deformities, giving the parents the opportunity to see their child or not see their child by THEIR choice, not one made for them by someone who feels it "would be better" for them not to see their child.

The parents should be advised of available medical procedures to offer sustenance, such as a Gtube or TPN, comfort measures, and the option of removing life support and hastening passage with morphine or any other assistive drugs.

It is unethical and immoral to prevent these parents from knowing everything about their child, as well as their options, and allowing them to make the choices for their child.

First, these parents are going to grieve the death of their child for the rest of their lives, whether their child died at birth or a few days later, or even a year later. This is THEIR child, who they awaited, whom the mother carried under her heart, who they loved in utero.

They have a right to know that their child survived birth, but with severe, life-taking anomalies. They have a right to see, hold, love their child.

These parents were deprived of those rights, and if they are still living today, they are grieving for that child. I feel certain of that.

It is up to no one, other than these parents, as to how that child should have been treated, or whether that child should have been killed.

To this day, the doctor still claims that he would have killed this child. That is the wrong answer, doctor.

Smothering? That is murder. It doesn't matter what initials you have after your name.

Who gave this doctor the right to make that decision? First the parents were robbed of their right to know that their child lived, and then he removes their right to know that their child died, and how their child died.

Medicine is a wonderful thing, and we are all grateful for it. But it can be abused, and doctors can think they are God, and they can, obviously, manipulate any medical situation as they determine suitable.

Too many physicians are all science and do not see the patient as a whole being. They only see the disease, or the condition, or the test results. Through the years, they lose their impartiality. They become judgmental and think they know it all.

And then they make statements like, "the right thing to do would have been to kill that baby. It wasn't really a baby."

Well, "doctor," yes "it" was a baby. And it isn't the dark ages of the 50's and 60's anymore, it's 2012. Time for you to become enlightened.

It's been 41 years since I gave birth, but I know this: no matter how my child looked, or whether my child was born with 12 eyes and 18 fingers, and only had moments to live, I would want to see him or her and have those moments to love my child. And any doctor or anyone, who prevented me from my right to have those moments, would rue the day.

And, even though a child was born 50 years ago with anomalies he can only describe as monstrous, and the child's parents were never told the truth about their child, and they have grieved without knowing the truth, perhaps lost other infants to the same condition, if it's genetic, and he still thinks that murdering the child was okay, it all comes back to the poor doctor. At the end, it's all about him and that he would like to stop thinking about it.

My approach to life is to combat a negative with a positive, because that is the essence of life. This doctor could have devoted his life to the study of birth abnormalities, or how to counsel grieving parents, or parents of newborns with medical issues, or children with terminal illnesses. But he didn't.

If you want advice on sexual matters, evidently, he's your guy, based on my perusal of his website.

So, his sad refrain that he'd like to stop thinking about the infant he dubbed "Cyclops Child" brings it all down to how he has suffered with this for 50 years. The man has learned NOTHING!

Forgive me for ranting and raving! I vividly recall many occasions, when doctors treated me like I didn't exist and my viewpoint was extraneous to their opinion of my sons. I know how intimidating and egotistic doctors can become, as I am a walking victim of dozens of them.

And he can moan all he wants about how hard this was on him, while still believing that murdering the child was the right thing to do, without any regard to what that child's parents endured and still endure. It isn't about him. Never was.

If that child could feel pain, then I'm sure that he could feel love. But he was left isolated, out of view of other parents, but in view of nurses, who listened to him cry, but couldn't/wouldn't help him. He was starving, and they could have stopped that pain, easily. Most of all, he was deprived of his parents and their loving, caring touch. No one should die this way.

So terribly sad and tragic on so many levels ~

I pray that lessons are learned from this story for all parents. Don't let anyone else decide for you.

Love & Light,

Rose

[Donna Thomson]

Agree. Agree. Agree. But things will not change until there is an common understanding that the bond between new parents and baby is inalienable and you are right - there is no such a thing as 'it'. All are equal because all are the objects of their parents' love (or the potential of it). Eva Kittay commented on the blog post and I wrote back as well - after thinking about the ethics, I think that even if the parents recoiled from their baby, a staff member then should have stepped in to cradle the baby in order to demonstrate his dignity as a human being (by giving him comfort). What is lacking in this doctor's view is LOVE. Love has too often and too long been left out of clinical decisions but this is the doctor's grave error and he still feels the pain of behaving unethically 50 years later (as he should). The loving bonds between babies and parents, between any vulnerable charge and ourselves have been considered out of place in a clinical conversation. This is the great error that dehumanizes and degrades all of us.

[Earth Mother 2 Angels]

Amen, Donna.

But I'm not convinced that this doctor feels the pain of behaving unethically 50 years ago, when he states that he still thinks that killing the baby was the right thing to do. This doctor is a psychiatrist. He should understand the importance of love, of the connection between parents and baby, of proper approaches to this situation by all hospital professionals, of counseling for the couple, of recognizing the humanity of the baby and the baby's right to dignity. And, as I said, he could have turned that negative into a positive in a variety of ways in his profession as a psychiatrist.

Love must be part of any clinical conversation, but I've often experienced a lack of consideration of the love my children and I share among medical practitioners. Now, we are blessed to be respected by the medical professionals for our love for our children. This was a long time coming, and I only pray that we are teaching them to treat all families with the same appreciation. They do to the greatest extent, I feel.

Whew! This topic really got me ramped up! I'll go check your blog for Eva Kittay's and your comments.

Thanks for continually challenging my brain, Donna.

Love & Light,

Rose

[andromeda31]

Hi!

Yes, love the topics that make me think...what would I do?...challenging my brain... I do feel a bit sorry for the doctor, if you remember in the article, he was only an intern for that situation so it was the attending (or whatever the heirarchy was) who made the decisions. I don't think he had any power to change anything. One would think that would shape his views even more towards a more correct way to handle difficult situations like that though. Hard to say! It still bothers me how they made him tie the extra fingers...why cause the baby pain when it was dying anyway? Sucks how the intern felt unable to speak up against the main doctor. I am sure those attitudes persist today.

Lisa O.

ps, I only use 'it' as they didn't say which gender

[Donna Thomson]

Hi guys, this story is just so sad in so many ways, as we have all said. I mourn this sweet baby and I'm so sorry for the pain inflicted upon him/her and the awful neglect. It breaks my heart. Our voices together talking about our love for our beautiful children will hopefully nudge public prejudices toward a kinder direction.

[Earth Mother 2 Angels]

((((((Lisa))))))

Yes, I would imagine that the same attitude persists today toward interns and their superiors.

To me, there are many ways that this doctor, as an intern, could have responded then, without annoying his superiors. He could have covertly attended to the baby, held and comforted the baby, etc. And I can think of a dozen ways or more that he could have directed his career to embrace this experience into his practice as a physician.

I just don't see where or how this doctor learned anything from this experience. And that is sad too.

((((((Donna))))))

Yes, it is so important that our children are seen, heard, and respected as the beautiful individuals, which they are.

And you are so right that if the parents couldn't cope with their child's condition, then someone in that hospital should have been assigned to care lovingly for the baby, until the baby passed. Our hospital is fortunate to have volunteers, mostly senior Grandma ladies, who sit in the NICU with the babies, feed them, hold and cuddle them, love them. And God bless those dear ladies, who probably do not balk at any deformities or abnormalities, because their hearts are filled with love.

As a society, we should be judged by how we treat those who are less fortunate, those who are vulnerable.

"The Least Among You ~ They Are the Greatest."

Amen.

Love & Light,

Rose

[Donna Thomson]

Rose, do you think our young people today feel the same compulsion to nurture babies who need to be held or to comfort those less fortunate? Are these values still prevalent? And where were those values in the generation of the doctor who wrote the article about the Cyclops Child? Do you think only women held these values of compassion acted upon in daily life (silently, unpaid) in his generation? Lisa? Any ideas about these questions?