Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
Technician

This kids a no-brainer.

Recommended Posts

No literally. One year ago a child was born without a brain in it's skull. This isn't as unusual as it may sound, but these babies usually only live for a few days. This one has survived a year.

http://www.aolhealth.com/health/anencephaly-baby-without-brain?icid=main

What's people's take on this? I guess it's like a child born that's severly retarded. Aparently this baby can both smile and laugh, with only his brain stem.

Do you think these people are just delaying the inevitable? What would you do if a child were born without a brain? I think there are a couple of parents on this board so I'd like to here some opinions.

Share this post


Link to post

I didn't know the brain stem controlled breathing/organ control/heart functions. I mean, it's great that he lived this long and all, but do you have any other choice than to just let him live as long as he can? Can you just 'kill' a baby?

Share this post


Link to post
Ninjalah said:

Can you just 'kill' a baby?


According to some, you can't even 'kill' your own jism.

Share this post


Link to post
Ninjalah said:

I didn't know the brain stem controlled breathing/organ control/heart functions.


Welcome to The Medulla.

Personally, I think Euthanasia would be the proper course. Then again, I've never had a child.

Share this post


Link to post

A harsh view would be that this kid is no more than a pet. Other than its shape, it has no qualities that make it particularly human. You'd get more learning, emotion, interactivity and companionship from a dog or a cat, or even a hamster. What's more, a dog (etc) would be easier and cheaper to keep.

Love the title of the thread BTW.

Share this post


Link to post

I have seen this before. Not personally, but on the internet.

I followed a blog a little while back of a lady who had a daughter born with anencephaly. She was a devout religious freak so any suggestion of abortion or euthanasia was totally out of the question, and she actually caused a huge legal fuss because her birthing doctor refused to provide life support to the baby.

Her blog went on for months, fawning over this child who "god" had decided was "meant to live" yet was also on constant life support with drugs and machines supplying the things a body needs to survive that the brain wasn't doing. Oh the irony.

After a few pictures and videos of basic electrical nerve impulses, which this mad bitch was convinced where "laughing" or "cooing" the kid finally died. She reckoned she was okay with it, but I think she was getting her hopes up far too much. She had someone screening her emails, god she must have got some awesome angry letters.


I think keeping a thing alive like this is wrong and indeed just delaying the inevitable. Not only is it cruel to the parents and the child itself, it's a waste of already-stressed health resources.

Share this post


Link to post

I don't see much in this kid's future, if at all.

Jamie: I remember that woman as I read some stuff up on her and the child.

Nobody deserves to be born in these conditions as it's as valid as a death sentence or being a vegetable. If I couldn't see, hear or move I would want to be put out of my misery as it takes everything fun about being alive away.

Share this post


Link to post

The kid is in no capacity to care whether it's alive or dead. It doesn't even have the capacity to be aware of its own existence. I'm not trying to be cruel or heartless, it's just... I see no meaning in the kid's existence. I know I may be a bit overly clinical here, but I come from a medically-inclined family, and that kind of affects how I view things like this.

I just see no reason in keeping the child alive. He can't feel suffering - because he cannot feel anything. He has no thoughts, he has no emotions - he is virtually already dead, which is to say, he was never really alive in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post

Keep it alive. It's a functioning body that is maintaining organs that could be used for transplant surgery. :P

Share this post


Link to post

Euthanasia looks to be the only logic ansewer.

Leting the baby die would prevent lot of pain, both for the baby or the parents.

You know this baby will die one day or other. If he die after he is born, you will not get too much afection with him. But if you live with him over a year, you will start to love him, and you gonna suffer a lot when he die.

Also, don't you mind if is the baby felling pain? How do you think is living without a brain? I would rather die than living that way.

Share this post


Link to post

I say not to kill him, because for surviving a year without a brain (i.e. being functional just with the stem and spinal cord), he could be used for science. Killing would be a waste.

But maybe I'm ignoring the fact that animals can be already used for similar experiments; there's no need for people to do this.

Still don't kill him. If he lives by his tens, he'd be an interesting medical case, good for some research.

Share this post


Link to post
Sergeant_Mark_IV said:

Euthanasia looks to be the only logic ansewer.

Leting the baby die would prevent lot of pain, both for the baby or the parents.

You know this baby will die one day or other. If he die after he is born, you will not get too much afection with him. But if you live with him over a year, you will start to love him, and you gonna suffer a lot when he die.

Also, don't you mind if is the baby felling pain? How do you think is living without a brain? I would rather die than living that way.


Methinks you have a confusion of terms there. Advocating killing him and letting him die in the same post is confusing much.

They should definitely keep him. Useful scientific data may come of it. :)

Share this post


Link to post

Wasn't some woman on the telly years back who had lived to adulthood with no brain?

Edit: and was more or less normal, not just a metabolism machine

Share this post


Link to post

Let's get one thing straight: this kid does not experience what it's like living as a vegetable. Not only can he not see or hear as the news article notes, but he has no sense of touch, taste, smell, body position, etc. He has never experienced anything. He does not have a mind. There is absolutely nothing there.

Now, I'm not saying he should be euthanized, because his "life" is meaningless - I'm saying that there's no reason to worry about any pain that this kid is experiencing, "living" this way. Why not let this body keep ticking, and see what it does?

Share this post


Link to post
deathbringer said:

Wasn't some woman on the telly years back who had lived to adulthood with no brain?

Edit: and was more or less normal, not just a metabolism machine

Sarah Palin?

Share this post


Link to post

Creaphis said:
Let's get one thing straight: this kid does not experience what it's like living as a vegetable. Not only can he not see or hear as the news article notes, but he has no sense of touch, taste, smell, body position, etc. He has never experienced anything. He does not have a mind. There is absolutely nothing there.

Man, cellular elitism has become such a thing that it's no wonder some cells rebel in destructive ways... the brain cell is the Nazi Übermensch of the human body!

Share this post


Link to post
myk said:

Man, cellular elitism has become such a thing that it's no wonder some cells rebel in destructive ways... the brain cell is the Nazi Übermensch of the human body!


Haha, I may have overstated my case but I can't imagine a realistic alternative. Are you arguing against my position or just making a crack?

Share this post


Link to post

Creaphis said:
Are you arguing against my position or just making a crack?

I'm not entirely certain.

Share this post


Link to post
Danarchy said:

It's not so unusual. In another 20 years, this kid will be voting Republican.


Is that what the "pro-life" thing is all about??

Share this post


Link to post

The problem with the parents and the congregation of their church is they think this some kind of little miracle. This is not a miracle it's a tragedy. Kids who are born physically disabled and strive for some quality of life are miracles. This kid will never achieve that. This kids future is as empty as his skull.

I'm not saying it's cruel to keep him alive. Not in the least. This kid can't suffer. He's literally a living "Betty wets herself doll". I can only assume this kid will begin to deteriorate from lack of muscle stimulation. I'm just sad to see the parents become to attached to a being that can provide no comfort other then a warm bundle it your arms.

I have to wonder how they exactly got this baby to laugh.

Share this post


Link to post
Super Jamie said:

I have seen this before. Not personally, but on the internet.

I followed a blog a little while back of a lady who had a daughter born with anencephaly...


That's who I thought this was about. Anon and I had some fun with that blog.

Anyway, it's a human husk. Do away with it.

Share this post


Link to post

If I had a kid with no brain i'd probably just take it out back and blow it's brains out.

Oh wait...

/horrible joke

That's definetly weird, it almost seems cruel to keep the kid alive.

Share this post


Link to post

For what it's worth, since we all have dicks maybe it's difficult for us to imagine what it's like to house a baby in you for 9 months, give birth, and let the child die. Someone below mentioned how its worse to let the child live for a year and become attached, but wouldn't you think the mother is already naturally attached? It's her baby.

As you can see by posts like the one directly above mine, a good deal of people here aren't exactly sensitive about such an issue.

I don't know what the right or wrong answer is but I imagine that there are just some factors here that we have trouble relating to.

Share this post


Link to post

Just because someone is male does not mean they cannot emotionally relate to the process of creating a child.

I think it would be better to let go of offspring like this with abortion, before they become "real", which I think would just make it all alot harder to let go of. I think effort as a couple would be better spent loving a "proper" child.

My girlfriend agrees with this, so it's not just some callous detached masculine attitude.

Share this post


Link to post

Since the baby isn't suffering, or really feeling anything at all, I think it has to be left up to the parents. While I agree that it would be better for them in the long run to euthanise it, it clearly wouldn't be better for it to happen against their will, or for them to be pressured into allowing it if it's not what they want. I think the best thing would be for everyone to just leave them to it. The baby will likely die eventually, and if not then as it gets old the parents nurturing instinct will decline and eventually it'll just end up drooling away its life in some hospital, alongside all the other vegetative patients.

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×