10 Yrs. Later, Boys 'Hand of Hope' Continues to Spark Debate

[Oceanbreeze]

But for every minute the defect is open is another minute that the body is being damaged. Why would you want to leave the defect open, and allow the damage to continue?

Because you're not doing this kid any favors. Babies who undergo fetal surgery are always born premature, so you're just trading one set of complications for another.

Sounds like a good trade off, doesn't it?

NOT.

 

[pek1]

First off, I want to say I have absolutely NO issues with the mother's decision to have this surgery done on her and her fetus. But, that's not the issue here, anyway.

Sorry for the edit, but in case Alex gets onto us to shorten our posts and not to keep quoting, I'd like to do my part.

I work a job where one of my clients is 1 1/2 years older than I am and has the mentality of an eight-month old. He really can't walk, can't talk. He sits on the sofa sucking on a stuffed animal. I agree with you, Lucia, seeing this guy makes me not want to have sex or anything. It's pretty sad. But, that's what his mom wants, no idea where the dad is unless he's out "pollinating" the world. :roll: I'd like to see a significant amount of men take responsibility and be active instead of acting like donors and "here today, gone tomorrow baby!" Yeah, that was supposed to be taken as a pot shot at the guys (my own sex).

As for euthanasia, I leave this in the family's hands. That Terry woman a few years ago, I stand behind the husband although the media made him look like an idiot.

As for abortion, well, ahem, all I'll say is not to screw around and you won't need one. But, realistically, hormones overshadow brain cells in both sexes. This is all I'll say.

 

[pek1]

The hearing community fights amongst its own. Look at all the drama btw the Liberals and Conservatives. The Deaf community is not allowed to fight amongst itself? Ok...

shel, I didn't mean it the way it sounded . . . you know what I mean. The (hearing) parents: "What do you mean my baby is deaf? Oh waaaa, why can't you do something, doctor, it's your job?! I can't deal with a deaf child, might as well be dead!"

Now, if any of you had parents that said that, please, don't take this as a slam toward you, as I would never do that. But, it was said to show the other side of the coin. Hearing people have their own issues and as for the liberals and conservatives? Somebody slap someone, please!

 

[pek1]

. . . Oh, and I would NOT like to be born famous, personally. I don't want to have that much attention. I'm not the kind of person who thinks it would be so awesome to be on TV or be an actor, or even be in the media. I don't really like attention. Although I may not look like it, I am a private person. I always turn down offers by various reporters for various things. I like for my life to be kept private. I feel more secure this way . . .

Lucia,

If you have gotten the attention of the media in your town and they request an interview, why not do it? Being a private person? You're the best subject as such and news directors love those kind of people, not the ones who have canned speeches and look for the lights and cameras everywhere they go. Dang, girl! I can't believe you! Reporters love those kind of people, too, because they're the best subjects to have something to say. Get over the shyness and do at least one. Then, watch yourself on the news! What's neat about it is that you get to see yourself in the same light as other people see you, complete with your schticks, on television! Then, after you see that, you can start honing how you appear to others as you'll remember what you saw yourself do and get out of the habit of it. Seriously, I'd rethink your position if I were you.

 

[faire_jour]

shel, I didn't mean it the way it sounded . . . you know what I mean. The (hearing) parents: "What do you mean my baby is deaf? Oh waaaa, why can't you do something, doctor, it's your job?! I can't deal with a deaf child, might as well be dead!"

Now, if any of you had parents that said that, please, don't take this as a slam toward you, as I would never do that. But, it was said to show the other side of the coin. Hearing people have their own issues and as for the liberals and conservatives? Somebody slap someone, please!

How dare you say that? And then to pretend like it is ok by saying "I didn't mean it" OUTRAGEOUS

 

[shel90]

shel, I didn't mean it the way it sounded . . . you know what I mean. The (hearing) parents: "What do you mean my baby is deaf? Oh waaaa, why can't you do something, doctor, it's your job?! I can't deal with a deaf child, might as well be dead!"

Now, if any of you had parents that said that, please, don't take this as a slam toward you, as I would never do that. But, it was said to show the other side of the coin. Hearing people have their own issues and as for the liberals and conservatives? Somebody slap someone, please!

Oh I get it! LOL!

 

[Oceanbreeze]

Lucia,

If you have gotten the attention of the media in your town and they request an interview, why not do it? Being a private person? You're the best subject as such and news directors love those kind of people, not the ones who have canned speeches and look for the lights and cameras everywhere they go. Dang, girl! I can't believe you! Reporters love those kind of people, too, because they're the best subjects to have something to say. Get over the shyness and do at least one. Then, watch yourself on the news! What's neat about it is that you get to see yourself in the same light as other people see you, complete with your schticks, on television! Then, after you see that, you can start honing how you appear to others as you'll remember what you saw yourself do and get out of the habit of it. Seriously, I'd rethink your position if I were you.

Why should she re-think her position? I happen to agree with her. It sounds like you're judging her or making fun of her and to that I said...

People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

 

[LuciaDisturbed]

Lucia,

If you have gotten the attention of the media in your town and they request an interview, why not do it? Being a private person? You're the best subject as such and news directors love those kind of people, not the ones who have canned speeches and look for the lights and cameras everywhere they go. Dang, girl! I can't believe you! Reporters love those kind of people, too, because they're the best subjects to have something to say. Get over the shyness and do at least one. Then, watch yourself on the news! What's neat about it is that you get to see yourself in the same light as other people see you, complete with your schticks, on television! Then, after you see that, you can start honing how you appear to others as you'll remember what you saw yourself do and get out of the habit of it. Seriously, I'd rethink your position if I were you.

I'm not going to reward this lame post of yours with anything but this: :roll:

 

[LuciaDisturbed]

Why should she re-think her position? I happen to agree with her. It sounds like you're judging her or making fun of her and to that I said...

People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

Thank you, Oceanbreeze.

 

[lsfoster]

Like Karissa, I don't want to get dragged into another abortion debate. I can't, however, sit and read posts that have clearly just not been researched at all. First of all, the issue of whether or not a 21-wk old fetus could push their arm out of the womb is not really much of a question. Look up when fetus start moving around a lot, usually around 7-8 weeks, and consider how strongly they can kick by 21 weeks. It's easily possible for one to basically straighten their arm and reach out of the womb.

Also, the fact is you have no idea what type of procedures or techniques or anesthesia were used. It took me less than ten minutes to find a dozen published papers about the effects of anesthesia on the fetus during fetal surgery. This is a quote from one of them, "Fetal sedation by placental transfer of maternally administered medication is not reliable and does not ensure an anesthetized or immobile fetus."
Effects on the fetus and newborn of maternal analgesia and anesthesia: a review: [Les effets de l'analgesie et de l'anesthesie de la mere sur le foetus et le nouveau-ne: une revue] -- Littleford 51 (6): 586 -- Canadian Journal of Anesthesia
Without any more information about how exactly the procedure was done, it isn't really possible to know what could have happened. What I do know is that it seems kind of contradictory to first say that the fetus couldn't move enough to stick his hand out of the womb, but then argue so strongly that he had to be sedated so that he wouldn't move and disturb the surgery. :shrug:

 

[Oceanbreeze]

Like Karissa, I don't want to get dragged into another abortion debate. I can't, however, sit and read posts that have clearly just not been researched at all. First of all, the issue of whether or not a 21-wk old fetus could push their arm out of the womb is not really much of a question. Look up when fetus start moving around a lot, usually around 7-8 weeks, and consider how strongly they can kick by 21 weeks. It's easily possible for one to basically straighten their arm and reach out of the womb.

Also, the fact is you have no idea what type of procedures or techniques or anesthesia were used. It took me less than ten minutes to find a dozen published papers about the effects of anesthesia on the fetus during fetal surgery. This is a quote from one of them, "Fetal sedation by placental transfer of maternally administered medication is not reliable and does not ensure an anesthetized or immobile fetus."
Effects on the fetus and newborn of maternal analgesia and anesthesia: a review: [Les effets de l'analgesie et de l'anesthesie de la mere sur le foetus et le nouveau-ne: une revue] -- Littleford 51 (6): 586 -- Canadian Journal of Anesthesia
Without any more information about how exactly the procedure was done, it isn't really possible to know what could have happened. What I do know is that it seems kind of contradictory to first say that the fetus couldn't move enough to stick his hand out of the womb, but then argue so strongly that he had to be sedated so that he wouldn't move and disturb the surgery. :shrug:

How realiable is this study?

 

[LuciaDisturbed]

Like Karissa, I don't want to get dragged into another abortion debate. I can't, however, sit and read posts that have clearly just not been researched at all. First of all, the issue of whether or not a 21-wk old fetus could push their arm out of the womb is not really much of a question. Look up when fetus start moving around a lot, usually around 7-8 weeks, and consider how strongly they can kick by 21 weeks. It's easily possible for one to basically straighten their arm and reach out of the womb.

Also, the fact is you have no idea what type of procedures or techniques or anesthesia were used. It took me less than ten minutes to find a dozen published papers about the effects of anesthesia on the fetus during fetal surgery. This is a quote from one of them, "Fetal sedation by placental transfer of maternally administered medication is not reliable and does not ensure an anesthetized or immobile fetus."
Effects on the fetus and newborn of maternal analgesia and anesthesia: a review: [Les effets de l'analgesie et de l'anesthesie de la mere sur le foetus et le nouveau-ne: une revue] -- Littleford 51 (6): 586 -- Canadian Journal of Anesthesia
Without any more information about how exactly the procedure was done, it isn't really possible to know what could have happened. What I do know is that it seems kind of contradictory to first say that the fetus couldn't move enough to stick his hand out of the womb, but then argue so strongly that he had to be sedated so that he wouldn't move and disturb the surgery. :shrug:

The fetus can move a bit at this point in the pregnancy, but I highly doubt he would be able to push his fist through and grab the doctor's finger and actually squeeze the doctor's finger. Even so, the fetus still needs to be completely immobilized because even the slightest movement can cause the surgeons to slip up and seriously injure the fetus' spine.

This surgery was being done to close a hole where the spinal defect is that is caused by spina bifida and therefore this is a very dangerous surgery, so the both the mother and fetus has to be completely immobilized under anesthesia drugs and with paralytic drugs which are given to the mother that would also put both the mother AND the fetus completely under and completely immobilize both of them, because if the fetus moved around while the doctors were operating on the fetus' SPINE to fix the spinal defect there will be very grave consequences, the fetus moving around could cause the surgeon to slip up and accidentally severely injure the spine cord further that it could even have made things much worse than it would have been if NO surgery that had been done at all, simply because the spine cord is a VERY DELICATE part that requires BOTH a NEUROSURGEON AND A OBGYN SURGEON to do the whole surgery, not just any old surgeon. The OBGYN makes the incision to get into the mother's uterus and get to the fetus, get to the fetus' spinal defect, and then the neurosurgeon takes over for the spine defect part. If the neurosurgeon slips up during the surgery and seriously damages the spine cord because the fetus moved, there will be VERY GRAVE CONSEQUENCES. In order to ensure that there are not such accidents, the fetus is completely 100% immobilized via anesthesia and paralytic drugs that is given to the mother which affects both the mother and the fetus. The fetus has to stay VERY STILL. The fetus CANNOT MOVE, period, or the fetus could suffer VERY GRAVE CONSEQUENCES. Did you even think of that? Just like other patients who have different surgeries for other things - they have to be COMPLETELY put under, they CANNOT MOVE, or there will be GRAVE CONSEQUENCES. I was completely immobilized during ALL my surgeries. If I moved around I would be in deep shit.

 

[Cheri]

The photo-op was done for selfish reasons: publicity for the pro-lifers. Pro-lifers will try to get their hands on anything and everything that even in the slightest supports the pro-life agenda. They seize every single opportunity. They are very obsessed.

It was not done by selfish reason, the photo was appeared during the congressional debates on Partial-birth abortion ban act. It is only to show the congresses that the fetus is still a human being, since you could see fingernails cover their fingertips. There is absolutely no reason to aborted a 21 weeks fetus unless the mother or the fetus is in a life-threatening situation. Many times you've seen where mothers would aborted their unborn child over 21 weeks, isn't that kinda too late to have an abortion at this stage of their pregnancy, I would believe so. I feel that it is homicide to abort a fetus above 21 weeks that is so far developed it could live outside of the womb and that's my opinion while you got yours.

You can call me cold heart like you did with a member on this thread, judge all you want, but the truth is you just don't care for fetuses before they become babies, because of that women have all the rights, and fetuses have no rights under our laws and that's a crying shame. While I got no problem with abortion being done during the first trimester, but after the first trimester, yes I do have a problem with abortion being done.

 

[Oceanbreeze]

It was not done by selfish reason, the photo was appeared during the congressional debates on Partial-birth abortion ban act. It is only to show the congresses that the fetus is still a human being, since you could see fingernails cover their fingertips. There is absolutely no reason to aborted a 21 weeks fetus unless the mother or the fetus is in a life-threatening situation. Many times you've seen where mothers would aborted their unborn child over 21 weeks, isn't that kinda too late to have an abortion at this stage of their pregnancy, I would believe so. I feel that it is homicide to abort a fetus above 21 weeks that is so far developed it could live outside of the womb and that's my opinion while you got yours.

You can call me cold heart like you did with a member on this thread, judge all you want, but the truth is you just don't care for fetuses before they become babies, because of that women have all the rights, and fetuses have no rights under our laws and that's a crying shame. While I got no problem with abortion being done during the first trimester, but after the first trimester, yes I do have a problem with abortion being done.

Bingo. You hit the nail on the head with the bolded statement.

 

[Cheri]

Bingo. You hit the nail on the head with the bolded statement.

I failed to see your point, fetus is an unborn baby not a baby, unborn baby is also meaningful human life, which meaning a fetus has a life, and when is separate from it's mother, a baby is another life. Don't get so confused on what I'm saying OB.

 

[lsfoster]

How realiable is this study?

A lengthy, researched, published study? To me, it's more reliable than simply taking the "word" of either of the people involved in the article, and it's also more reliable than someone's hostile opinion. I'm not saying the baby could obviously move, I'm saying that without any information on how the surgery was performed, what procedures they used, what type of anesthesia and how it was administered, and when in the surgery that picture was taken, we can't say that it's definitely impossible.

The fetus can move a bit at this point in the pregnancy, but I highly doubt he would be able to push his fist through and grab the doctor's finger and actually squeeze the doctor's finger. Even so, the fetus still needs to be completely immobilized because even the slightest movement can cause the surgeons to slip up and seriously injure the fetus' spine.

This surgery was being done to close a hole where the spinal defect is that is caused by spina bifida and therefore this is a very dangerous surgery, so the both the mother and fetus has to be completely immobilized under anesthesia drugs and with paralytic drugs which are given to the mother that would also put both the mother AND the fetus completely under and completely immobilize both of them, because if the fetus moved around while the doctors were operating on the fetus' SPINE to fix the spinal defect there will be very grave consequences, the fetus moving around could cause the surgeon to slip up and accidentally severely injure the spine cord further that it could even have made things much worse than it would have been if NO surgery that had been done at all, simply because the spine cord is a VERY DELICATE part that requires BOTH a NEUROSURGEON AND A OBGYN SURGEON to do the whole surgery, not just any old surgeon. The OBGYN makes the incision to get into the mother's uterus and get to the fetus, get to the fetus' spinal defect, and then the neurosurgeon takes over for the spine defect part. If the neurosurgeon slips up during the surgery and seriously damages the spine cord because the fetus moved, there will be VERY GRAVE CONSEQUENCES. In order to ensure that there are not such accidents, the fetus is completely 100% immobilized via anesthesia and paralytic drugs that is given to the mother which affects both the mother and the fetus. The fetus has to stay VERY STILL. The fetus CANNOT MOVE, period, or the fetus could suffer VERY GRAVE CONSEQUENCES. Did you even think of that? Just like other patients who have different surgeries for other things - they have to be COMPLETELY put under, they CANNOT MOVE, or there will be GRAVE CONSEQUENCES. I was completely immobilized during ALL my surgeries. If I moved around I would be in deep shit.

First of all, I don't know why you feel you need to capitalize certain parts of your post, you are still providing nothing more than your opinion, it just makes it sound disjointed, and makes you sound way more aggressive than you need to be. Second of all, the highlighted part of your post is exactly the problem. If you are saying that the drugs were given to the mother, I just provided an article that says that this would not immobilize the fetus. So first of all, you don't know how they were administered, or what types of anesthesia were used, and if you're assuming that they were given to the mother and therefore paralyzed the fetus as well, then you're just willfully ignoring facts that I have presented.

Also, if you read some more articles on this case, you'll see that specific people's versions are different, yes, but they all agree on when the picture was taken, which was after the surgery was over, and the doctor was closing the womb back up. If the anesthesia had worn off and the baby was moving again by that point, it would not affect the surgery since the surgery was over.

I'm not saying it happened one way or the other. I'm saying that it's pointless to say it definitely did not happen, or that it's impossible, when plenty of evidence would seem to indicate that it is entirely possible.

 

[Cheri]

Being under anesthesia has advantages and disadvantages, because I've heard that some people had supposedly woke up while being under anesthesia.

 

[pek1]

. . . It sounds like you're judging her or making fun of her and to that I said . . .

Who was making fun of her, Oceanbreeze? I wasn't.