What good is life if there is no chance of living? This question centers on the case of Sun Hudson, the baby born with a fatal form of dwarfism who was removed from life support after 6 months. The most relevant information in this case was the decision to remove life support from the child contrary to the mother’s wishes. Was it morally correct or incorrect? Some people may believe that the child’s parent has the right to make decisions in regard to the child’s medical treatment. Others may believe that although the physicians may find it in Sun’s best interest to be removed from life support, the mother has a right to keep her son alive. My personal belief is that quality of life outweighs quantity and this is why I believe that it was morally correct to remove Sun from life support. On Sunday September 25, 2004 at St. Luke’s Episcopal Hospital in Houston, Texas Wanda Hudson gave birth to a baby boy named Sun. Shortly after birth, Sun was placed on life support to help him breathe. After being placed on life support, the doctors diagnosed Sun with thanatophoric dysplasia, a severe skeletal disorder characterized by a small chest, relatively large head, short limbs and folds of extra skin on the arms and legs. This is a rare yet fatal form of congenital dwarfism and affects 1 in every 60,000 births with poor prognosis. Physicians indicate that most babies with the condition, often diagnosed in the womb, are stillborn or die shortly after birth from respiratory failure. With the condition his chest cavity and lungs could not grow and develop the capacity to support his body. This would eventually lead to suffocation. After diagnosing Sun, the physicians thoroughly informed his mother of his condition and stated that he was unlikely to survive and recommended withdrawing treatment. Wanda objected to the doctors withdrawing treatment stating that her son just needed more time to develop and he would be fine. The more doctors and staff spoke and...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document