Would you keep your baby alive if it had no brain?

I said misery because it was the nicest way i could think of without saying “kill it”..

I think God put him/her here for an unknown reason. Most of the babies born this way die within hours or days. Some actually continue on longer. I dont think these babies are suffering becuase they know nothing. So to them its nothing. They can still smile and laugh. I knew a family with a baby made it till he was 3… he didnt really grow fast. I was there at his funeral. but he did smile and laugh a little and also responded to his mom and dads comfort.

Angel this is the only reporte case of a baby being born without a brain. But your right! someone, somewhere might have kept him alive for a reason :)

Its called Anencephaly. and there are many like this baby who have been born this way. http://funadvice.com/r/15q68abt7f0 there is another report…even more http://funadvice.com/r/bq5uj7n4qm4

My ex boyfriends sister had a baby born this way due to a horrible car accident while she was pregnant. He made it untill 3 years old. Doctors were stunned. I went to his funeral. sad day :(

The poor thing, im sorry to hear that. Its not the same problem just real similar. :/ Tragic non the less

Oh i see… yea sad

I cried the hole time

The baby has a working brain stem or “reptilian brain” else its heart wouldn’t beat and lungs wouldn’t breath. My understanding of the brain stem is that while conscious and can feel it is neither self-aware nor understands permanence. It neither remembers its past nor anticipates its future. It entirely lives in the moment with no context or understanding. I have no strong opinion either way if the baby should be kept alive as long as possible or allowed to pass. It would largely depend on the family’s worldview. I don’t think the baby has any quality of life but I assume it isn’t in pain either.

I don’t understand how it has no brain o_o we need a brain to breath and have a working heart don’t we? o.O

Yeah idk how its alive.. :/

there is always a brain up it could be as a result of excess or low amount chromosome in the child

I would have to say this is a decision only the parents can make. Could the child’s purpose be the source of a medical breakthrough? Are the parents willing to allow the hospital staff to put the child through the experimental surgeries and procedures, for a greater good? Can the parents bare the burdens of the babies care? How do they weigh the quality of life to the child they brought into the world and is in their care? How does all this effect the rest of the family in the decision that is theirs to make? These are questions they face and the burden of reaching a decision lies strictly with them. There’s no right or wrong answer for me, because I haven’t had to walk in those shoes.

i think “it” is a “he.”

it doesn’t look like he is suffering. from what i can see, he’s being well cared for, being brought outside and in public, being nurtured… it’s not like this is a family that is mistreating him. his mother is giving him unconditional love, and it’s her choice. i give her credit, that takes dedication and strength.

I couldn’t let my baby die. I know that’s selfish in a way. But I just couldn’t live with myself.

The video says he has got a brain stem. The trunk of a brain. All the sub-conscious nerve functions that keep vital organs running are in the brain stem. So he does have a central nervous system. And he does have the reflexes and the vegetative nerve system. He just isn’t conscious.

There is a general moral dilemma in this question. It is much, much deeper, than it may seem at first.

What it breaks down to is:

1. When is a life worth living and when is a life not worth living.
2. Who is to decide whether a life is worth living or not.

And that second question is the “WHOA!” point in it.

Some decades ago, my home country was ruled by an evil dictator and his evil regime. This dictator wanted to take over the world. thus he wished to keep his country as strong as possible. As a consequence, the regime started an “euthanasia program”, killing all those people - also children - whose lives were “not worth living”. (Hitlers regime also killed a helluva lot of other folks for racism or political reasons but that’s another story) In that time, people who were disabled, mentally ill or permanently depended on social and medical care for other reasons were murdered systematically. They spared war veterans, because they could not afford to demoralize their soldiers. But people who were permanently, severely disabled because of accidents, birth defects or diseases were killed.

This was done to save resources. Though the official diction was, of course, that those people were “put out of their misery” as their lives were “not worth living”. They did that to all disabled people. Children with downs syndrome, people who were disabled after suffering polio at young age, people who were disabled after accidents, mentally disabled people, psychotic people…

Now, let’s go back to modern understanding of morality…

When is a life worth living? Is that when the human feels happiness? Or when the human feels no pain? What about those who feel pain but still are happy sometimes? What about those who cannot utter whether they are happy or whether they feel pain? What about those who probably cannot feel at all? Who decides for them? Who is there who could make a decision? And where is the fine line between euthanasia and murder? Does that exist at all?

There it comes: When is it better for a person to be dead?

The answer is simple: If a person can utter his or her own will and wishes for death, then, and only then may euthanasia be legitimate. If a person CAN NOT utter his or her own will, then killing them is murder.

It may be legitimate to withhold a treatment that will only elongate the dying process from a dying person. But actively doing something to kill a person is morally out of scope.

Um…how can it survive if ithad no brain? Confused…

two words kiddie catapult

Two words DUMB SH!T.