Right to live, right to die. Fat-and-Happy TTC since Mar 2008; 1 child; Texas 13915 posts
Oct 6th '12

Hypothetical situations.

Scenario #1
You are informed that the child you are carrying will probably go into cardiac arrest after birth. The child can be brought back but will not have any degree of a quality if life. The child will not be in pain but will not be able to be much more than a vegetable. You have a choice to let the child die at birth or revive them. What would you choose?

If you chose to let the child die, what minimal living standard would choose to have them bring back the child?

Scenario #2

Your child has a genetic disease that activates later in life... Say at the onset of puberty. Fatality rates are 100%. Measures can be taken to prolong life for up to 5 years... But quality of life cannot be guaranteed. The disease process takes 1 year before fatality without intervention and can be painful. Your child has asked you to not to let them suffer and wants to end their life at the onset of the disease. What do you do?

How do you feel about the right to die in general?

user banned 3 kids; Los Angeles, California 54034 posts
Oct 6th '12

Obviously this is a tough thing to speculate on, because I know all of us would have a hard time saying goodbye to a child, of course.

I like to think that in scenario number two I'd respect my child's wishes. In scenario one- I would hope I'd let the child go rather than living a life of misery. I just don't know what the "line" would be.

In general I feel that we should all have the right to die when we want to, in the manner we see fit. Especially in the case of the terminally ill who seek assisted suicide.

S♡J=Malachi 1 child; 3 angel babies; Florida 3278 posts
Oct 6th '12

Omg both are hard choices but I think for the first I would birth the child but not let them revive & for the second choice I would research all my options first.

Belle De Jour Due October 8 (boy); 3 kids; Kentucky 19292 posts
Oct 6th '12


If I didn't find out until it was to late for senario #1 I would let the child die when it went into cardiac arrest. It would kill me to do it but I wouldn't want to take care of a vegtable the rest of my life and that is no life for that child either.

For senario #2 Abort again.
But again say I didn't know until after it was born. If the child asked me to kill it I would try and see how long I could keep him/her alive until they were in pain. When they began to feel the pain or effects I would try and find some humane way (like that pill you can take) to let the child pass.
Again the situation would kill me but in the end it would be for the better of the child.
But luckily for the most part a lot of those scenarios are caught before the child is born and you can abort.

thewarmth 3 kids; South Carolina 14438 posts
Oct 6th '12
Quoting Fat-and-Happy:" Hypothetical situations. Scenario #1 You are informed that the child you are carrying will probably ... [snip!] ... and wants to end their life at the onset of the disease. What do you do? How do you feel about the right to die in general?"

Scenario one - I would chose to revive the child. If they are not going to be in pain, I don't mind one bit taking care of them for life - even in a vegetative state. Never know what kind of advances could arise in their life to help them. If they were going to be in pain - that would be a different situation.

Scenario two - That is kind of tougher. Some kids hit puberty at 8 or 9, so I can't see a child wanting to die at that age when faced with that situation, more than likely they would be scared of death and would want to live. But, if my child was serious about not wanting to live those 5 more years, I would respect her decision. I just don't honestly see children wanting to die.

Punk Rock Princess {EBFT} 3 kids; Killeen, Texas 26911 posts
Oct 6th '12

Hmm. Difficult. Scenario 1: I would revive. Scenario 2: I would agree to not ressucitate but couldn't kill my child.

Binky ♡ 3 kids; Pennsylvania 6272 posts
Oct 6th '12


Those are hard questions to answer. I guess for scenario 1 I would probably give birth and let nature take its course...because I'm assuming I'm too far along to abort. Quality always trumps quantity for me, I wouldn't let my child live in a hospital bed for what little time they did spend on this earth.

For scenario would be hard but I would probably support my childs wishes. They have to go through the pain, no me. Ive seen it so many times in nursing homes, a resident will just want to die but their family wont allow it, so they waste away in a bed with a feeding tube...that's cruel, I couldn't do that to my child.

Fat-and-Happy TTC since Mar 2008; 1 child; Texas 13915 posts
Oct 6th '12

I just watched a show on Netflix called "Suicide Tourist" and it got me to thinking.

In scenario 1 I would let the child die. I don't know what I'd do in the second instance.

I think people should be able to choose to die. I think it should be legal.

Twizzlahs 2 kids; Florida 1685 posts
Oct 6th '12

Gah...Im sorta torn on the 1st one. Like a previous poster said, theres a possibility that some advancements may come along that would help your child, but its not a guarantee. And there would always be the worry of "What would happen to my child when Im gone?" So I guess Im leaning more towards not reviving on this one. :S

For the 2nd one, I would without a doubt respect my childs decision no matter how painful it would be for me to let them go. I dont think anyone should be forced to suffer through nasty, painful diseases if its too much for them to handle.

Very sad scenarios either way! :'(

mamaluvsher4babies 36 kids; California 4230 posts
Oct 6th '12

Well I am working on my birth plan now..and I have decided to opt out of life support..I am just going to do comfort care...All situations suck

Wiggity Wack 1 child; Connecticut 10780 posts
Oct 6th '12

Scenario 1: I would let the child die. Living as a vegetable isn't living at all.
Scenario 2: I don't know. That's a soul crushing decision to make. I guess I would respect my child's wishes.