From the New York Daily News, same story, different nuances ( http://www.nydailynews.com/news/local/story/302734p-259173c.html ) :

[quote]
After the hearing before Bronx Supreme Court Justice Douglas McKeon, Teron's uncle Frederick Francis, 53, said that when his nephew's "heart stops, that's it. That's when God will take him. It could happen in an hour or two weeks, but he is leaving us."
[/quote]

[quote]
Hospital spokesman Steve Osborne said McKeon, who was originally supposed to hear the case Monday in court, "determined that we're not going to take extraordinary measures" to keep Teron alive and that the boy's mom agreed.
[/quote]

It seems they just want him to die naturally and don't wish to proactively do anything to either shorten whatever time he has left or to do anything to prolong it, both of which is their right and the judge affirmed it.
I fail to see the controversy here beyond the question if doctor's weren't a direct cause for his condition.

Posted by: Vanessa at April 23, 2005 12:28 PM

"Die naturally" - this is the emotive term used whenever someone doesn't want to treat another person. It is prejudicial and vague to the point of being meaningless. You also presume that doctors should be able to "pull the plug" against parent's wishes and can detect the ending of life, for the purpose of organ harvesting, despite the functioning of the body. Frankly, I wouldn't trust anyone with the life of my child who did what is alleged in this article (http://www.nypost.com/commentary/45054.htm).

Posted by: tim at April 23, 2005 1:47 PM

Vanessa,

You don't see anything out of line with the statement:

"It is better to do it sooner than later because of the boy's condition. When you're brain dead, your organs just fade away slowly"

For crying out loud! The child isn't human, it is just a PROFIT CENTER!!

Posted by: Tom Spence at April 23, 2005 1:59 PM

It would be nice if people actually read what I typed and not presume to read something that isn't there.
Nowhere did I even hint at the fact that I think the hospital should take him off life support because I don't. Doctors have an advisory roll and their suggestions shouldn't be instantly dismissed but the final call is not theirs to make.
And unless I'm completely misreading everything the hearing was not on if he'll die but how and when and to stress that it was up to the parents to make that specific call.

Tom:
I can understand that the issue of donating would come up in a situation like this but I very much doubt it's done with ill intent.
Now, asking that to a mother and father who's son went from healthy to being declared clinically dead practically overnight, with a possibility that someone made a mistake and is directly responsible for it, is horribly insensitive and uncaring and it shouldn't have been brought up.

So I wholeheartedly agree with you that they grossly failed to show compassion towards the family but I don't agree with the fact they're just preying to harvest him.

Posted by: Vanessa at April 23, 2005 6:58 PM

Tom and Vanessa,

I'll say what I've always said: It is highly unwise to be a marketable commodity in a greedy and immoral world.

Posted by: mary et. al. at April 23, 2005 8:45 PM

Vanessa,

I don't mean to appear to be picking on you personally. We don't know the hospital's intent. We do, however, know what the hospital's spokesman said. **Words have meaning**. His words are very clear at least in regard to showing where the hospital's priorities lie.

Posted by: Tom Spence at April 24, 2005 12:30 AM