Sadly, it was determined the birth of my son would lead to his death unless he was hooked up to machines. Hydrocephalus reduced his brain to mostly brainstem function. The only positive that could come from this child’s existence was to donate his organs. This was not to happen as Reagan and his “Baby Doe Law” would not allow parents to make the call. We did not therefore allow him to be artificially kept alive. He died at birth. At that point his organs were no longer viable. It was such a waste that other infants could not be helped from our tragedy. When will government stop trying to interfere in personal matters? At least this stupid law was later repealed.

I'm so sorry for your loss -- and terribly sorry for the stupidity that prevented your son's organs from helping other babies. Thank you for taking the time to share your story, offering another perspective on a family's dilemma.

If a family has the right to reject artificial (and hopeless) life support options, why on earth wouldn't they have the right to decide when organs should be donated? If I faced a tragedy this like, I would want to gather some meaning from it. Saving another life might help do that -- it's the greatest gift one human being can give another.

Not to sound cold but I wonder if part of this has to do with the insurance company lobby. I can't imagine my health insurance carrier wanting to spend the money to keep someone alive with a 0% chance of recovery.

Not to mention the long-term costs of keeping a transplant patient alive. Those anti-rejection drugs cost a fortune.

My husband and I were given the option to prolong our son's life by hooking him up as soon as he was born. Knowing he would not survive, knowing we would not be able to donate his organs, we declined and let nature take it's course. There was no outside interferrence in our choice except for Ronnie.

Here is an interesting aside: While living in France, a test hinted that I might be carrying a fetus with Down's Syndrome. We were told to discuss our options with the Geneticist. She said, when the amniocentesis proves this disorder, an abortion would be scheduled. We expressed our desire to continue the pregnancy no matter what the outcome. The reply, “If you do not agree to an abortion, we will not do the test. France does not want to allow someone to knowingly bring an imperfect child into the world for it to support.” There you have it, government again meddling in a personal affair. I had a perfect daughter.

Ma'am, the French have a "social conscience". They recognize that with socialized medical care and social welfare programs that your decision has social effects and will place social costs on others.

They are just a few years further along the road we are on.

With the baby boomers about to impose massive social costs on the rest of us, and Obama poised to socialize our medical system, we need to start thinking hard about when we should best terminate them.

I see the new Washington (Oregon?) state law that lets nurses cut off food and water to befuddled elderly patients as a step in the right direction.

extreme senility. Hell I can become befuddled.

i think it is very cruel and selfish to bring a down syndrome child into this world if you know for sure (not like the case above, where they said it is possible ..but not certain) that it has the disorder.

Nasochkas:

i think it is very cruel and selfish to bring a down syndrome child into this world if you know for sure (not like the case above, where they said it is possible ..but not certain) that it has the disorder.

But what's the cut-off for so-called "imperfections"? Deafness? A weak heart? Hermaphroditism? I'm pro-choice, but how is bringing a child into the world cruel and selfish, unless you're really into overpopulation issues or eugenics?

Anti-rejection drugs cost less than treating your disease. My mother had a kidney transplant. I think her insurance company would rather cover her anti-rejection drugs than her going to dialysis 3 times a week and the medicine she has to take on top of that.