Premature baby not allowed to live under G.B. nationalized health care plan

Status
Not open for further replies.
kokonut said:
Denied a funeral? It's her baby!! Not the govt! Not the hospital. It's her decision on what to do with the remains of her own baby. Lucky for her to get that birth cert.
Click to expand...

More evidence of the lack of credibility in the story. If she was given a birth certificate, she was also given a death certificate. If a death certificate was issued, burial cannot be denied.:roll:
 
kokonut said:
What I don't understand is why people are "attacking" me for saying that a micro-preemie baby deserves a chance to survive and live with the help of medical technology. If a baby is born breathing, unassisted, even at 21 weeks, give medical assistence! Developmental growth rates vary among babies when most would probably die at 21/22 weeks but then we have babies born alive and breathing on its own at 21/22 weeks while you have babies die shortly after birth at 22/23 weeks. Can't even imagine a baby born 10 oz (a can of soda is 12 oz) could survive and live to grow up.
Click to expand...

well - even by a week older, it increases the survival chance. a 22-weeks old baby has a better chance than 21 weeks and a 23-weeks old baby has a better chance than those 2. Every case is different so it's up to doctors to decide on it. It is completely understandable for every parents to demand doctors to "miraculously" save their preemies when it is not survivable on most cases.

Fortunately - I'm glad there are doctors without same zealous "pro-life" ideal as yours because they know better when to not continue to prevent the suffering from prolonging on both parties (families and preemies) as humanely as possible. They will inform the parents of their professional medical opinions and it's up to parents to decide whether or not to continue.
 
It's better to give babies born prematurely a chance at life when they come out breathing, no matter how small. The crux of it, they deserve a chance and not seen as a blob of tissue. The problem is, based on the G.B. story, the doctors never gave the mother the opportunity to decide for her baby to live or die. There was only one option......death.
 
kokonut said:
It's better to give babies born prematurely a chance at life when they come out breathing, no matter how small. The crux of it, they deserve a chance and not seen as a blob of tissue. The problem is, based on the G.B. story, the doctors never gave the mother the opportunity to decide for her baby to live or die. There was only one option......death.
Click to expand...

Again, "I'm not a doctor but I play one on AD". Get over yourself, koko. Or go to med school, one of the two.
 
Jiro said:
well - even by a week older, it increases the survival chance. a 22-weeks old baby has a better chance than 21 weeks and a 23-weeks old baby has a better chance than those 2. Every case is different so it's up to doctors to decide on it. It is completely understandable for every parents to demand doctors to "miraculously" save their preemies when it is not survivable on most cases.

Fortunately - I'm glad there are doctors without same zealous "pro-life" ideal as yours because they know better when to not continue to prevent the suffering from prolonging on both parties (families and preemies) as humanely as possible. They will inform the parents of their professional medical opinions and it's up to parents to decide whether or not to continue.
Click to expand...

Unborn babies grow at different rates which is why some are born much bigger while others much smaller at 40 weeks gestation. It was already mentioned that this baby born was similar in size to that of a 23 week gestation baby. Which is why the danger of a cut-off date. The baby was obviously breathing on his own for under two hours according to the article.
 
kokonut said:
Unborn babies grow at different rates which is why some are born much bigger while others much smaller at 40 weeks gestation. It was already mentioned that this baby born was similar in size to that of a 23 week gestation baby. Which is why the danger of a cut-off date. The baby was obviously breathing on his own for under two hours according to the article.
Click to expand...

What was its weight and length? Don't have that info any more than you have any of the other medical information, now, do you?
 
jillio said:
Again, "I'm not a doctor but I play one on AD". Get over yourself, koko. Or go to med school, one of the two.
Click to expand...

Let's not get overly personal here. :nono:

I am stating my opinon based on the articles I've read and the fact that other babies born at 22 weeks have survived and grew up. Attack the arguments, not the person.
 
jillio said:
What was its weight and length? Don't have that info any more than you have any of the other medical information, now, do you?
Click to expand...

Even then, weight and length doesn't means anything. People ask me if I wish I wasn't a premie... not really. Why? I was an abnormally large baby when I was born, and if my mom carried me to full-term, there would be complications at birth and I would probably die due to the sheer size of my own body mass.

I was 6 pounds at 26 or 27 weeks. Translate that to 40 weeks, and you have someone that is in excess of 15 pounds which has its own death-related causes.
 
kokonut said:
Let's not get overly personal here. :nono:

I am stating my opinon based on the articles I've read and the fact that other babies born at 22 weeks have survived and grew up. Attack the arguments, not the person.
Click to expand...

Opinion based on nothing factual. I am attacking the arguments. Your arguments are full of holes, totally lack support, and are based on nothing more than anecdote. Yet you seem to think that is sufficient to second guess the medical professional.:roll:
 
According to the article...

"...his gestation, measuring 28 cm, the size of a 23-week-old."

Still, bottom line, the baby was breathing on his own...unassisted...for a good length of time.
 
jillio said:
Opinion based on nothing factual. I am attacking the arguments. Your arguments are full of holes, totally lack support, and are based on nothing more than anecdote. Yet you seem to think that is sufficient to second guess the medical professional.:roll:
Click to expand...

Apparently doctors never bothered to help. While in the USA they have.
 
kokonut said:
Apparently doctors never bothered to help. While in the USA they have.
Click to expand...

Yet British doctors have made exceptions as well as mentioned by DeafLissa earlier in the thread.

This is not a case of American healthcare versus British healthcare. Find something else to attack.
 
kokonut said:
Apparently doctors never bothered to help. While in the USA they have.
Click to expand...

Apparently nothing. Nothing can be apparent from one sided anecdote. Nor can you say that doctors in the USA would not have made the same decision under the same circumstances. That is the whole point. Until you have the facts necessary, and the education and training to interpret them, you can't say anything is apparent.
 
souggy said:
Yet British doctors have made exceptions as well as mentioned by DeafLissa earlier in the thread.

This is not a case of American healthcare versus British healthcare. Find something else to attack.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Let the infant RIP and stop using it to further a personal political agenda regarding health care.
 
kokonut said:
According to the article...

"...his gestation, measuring 28 cm, the size of a 23-week-old."

Still, bottom line, the baby was breathing on his own...unassisted...for a good length of time.
Click to expand...

Well, you got one of them. His length. Now how about weight and all the other medical information asked for that is necessary to determine probability of survival?

For God's sake, kokonut, let this infant RIP and stop using it as a way to further your personal political agenda regarding health care reform. You just continue to get more and more insensitive in your quest.
 
Sure I can. She wasn't allowed to make a decision. After all, the money belonged to the govt and they made a decision for her. It certainly looks like that. This is all my opinion on what I've read so far and understand.
 
jillio said:
Well, you got one of them. His length. Now how about weight and all the other medical information asked for that is necessary to determine probability of survival?

For God's sake, kokonut, let this infant RIP and stop using it as a way to further your personal political agenda regarding health care reform. You just continue to get more and more insensitive in your quest.
Click to expand...

:nono:

Again, stop with the personal attacks against AD members. I've stated my opinion. Either you agree to disagree or not.

Poor guy.
 
Opinions are like ass holes. Everyone has one.:P
 
Jiro said:
well - even by a week older, it increases the survival chance. a 22-weeks old baby has a better chance than 21 weeks and a 23-weeks old baby has a better chance than those 2. Every case is different so it's up to doctors to decide on it. It is completely understandable for every parents to demand doctors to "miraculously" save their preemies when it is not survivable on most cases.

Fortunately - I'm glad there are doctors without same zealous "pro-life" ideal as yours because they know better when to not continue to prevent the suffering from prolonging on both parties (families and preemies) as humanely as possible. They will inform the parents of their professional medical opinions and it's up to parents to decide whether or not to continue.
Click to expand...

:gpost:
 
souggy said:
Yet British doctors have made exceptions as well as mentioned by DeafLissa earlier in the thread.

This is not a case of American healthcare versus British healthcare. Find something else to attack.
Click to expand...

:gpost:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top