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

[dreama]

Kokonut, if you feel strongly about it, why don't you speak to those doctors who allegately let the baby die.

There is a petition about this and I've signed it but Kokonut can't as it's only for british citizens to sign. Petition to: change the law to allow children born alive the right to life. | Number10.gov.uk

Justice For Jayden - Home

 

[dreama]

If that is the case, then it's the law-makers, not your healthcare system. The two are separate. The doctors in the United States are not obligated to help micro-premies as well.

It's not the right battleground for an American to be comparing their own future healthcare system with another country's healthcare system based on the abortion laws.

Correction: In USA the doctors are not obliged to help. That means they can if they want to but they are not forced.
In this case the doctors are not Allowed to help. That is differant. If some do anyway they would be breaking the law (which is not the case for USA).

Incidently the worlds youngest Premmie comes from canada.

 

[KarissaMann05]

Can't just we move on?

They agreed the baby was not able to survive and it's better to leave him die.

Other posters agreed the baby was able to survive and it's better to give him a chance.

We have different opinions.

 

[shel90]

Can't just we move on?

They agreed the baby was not able to survive and it's better to leave him die.

Other posters agreed the baby was able to survive and it's better to give him a chance.

We have different opinions.

I agree...that's why I told Kokonut that if he feels so strongly about it and wants to change the policy then go out and do something about it. Arguing it here on AD is just a waste of time.

Unless his intention was to use this situation to try to convince us to change our minds about Obama's Healthcare reform?

 

[KarissaMann05]

EDIT: My post is messed up, and fixed it now.

Arguing it here on AD is just a waste of time.

Right.

I don't want to point out or to name someone... Remmy, two posters got in a fight in my old pro life thread? So, I would hate to see anybody getting hurt, piss off, and upset by just having strong opinions that might offend you.

 

[dreama]

Karissima: They seem to want to single out Kokonut. There are 4 of us who feel this way:
Me, Kokonut, Reba and Jazzy

Probably more but some people may be afraid of speaking their mind in case they get attacked.

 

[KarissaMann05]

That is why we should get move on and try to find any thread that is interesting to anybody and you.

I think this is not a debate but it'd rather a personal. It's forward and backward...

 

[kokonut]

I agree...that's why I told Kokonut that if he feels so strongly about it and wants to change the policy then go out and do something about it. Arguing it here on AD is just a waste of time.

Unless his intention was to use this situation to try to convince us to change our minds about Obama's Healthcare reform?

I don't live in G.B.! But I'll certainly give my support to Dreama since she's over there in London. The United States is safe...for now.

I stated my opinions based on the available information. Nothing to it. Yet I hear complaints. Everybody else has an opinion but I cannot? I certainly do not go around and complain about people who make their own opinions. Everybody argues and debate, does that mean what they do is a complete waste of time in AD, too?

 

[kokonut]

Karissima: They seem to want to single out Kokonut. There are 4 of us who feel this way:
Me, Kokonut, Reba and Jazzy

Probably more but some people may be afraid of speaking their mind in case they get attacked.

Nobody. And I do mean nobody should feel afraid to speak out their minds on an issue they feel strongly about in AD (or anywhere else). Ever! The real problem (a big reason for some for not speaking up) is fearing the backlash by those who use belittlements and ad hominems as a lancet. And to personally attack and demean those who feel otherwise. It's an ugly, ugly cycle I see. Instead of attacking the argument, people would rather attack the person. And this is a sign of frustration rather than agree to disagree and have at it.

Never be afraid to speak your mind. Ever. Even if I or others disagree strongly.

 

[saywhatkid]

Karissima: They seem to want to single out Kokonut. There are 4 of us who feel this way:
Me, Kokonut, Reba and Jazzy

Probably more but some people may be afraid of speaking their mind in case they get attacked.

That is generally the same group for most issues. Does not matter to me. I respect different opinions, to a point. When you post redundant materials that are all digging in the same sandbox, I grow tired; especially if the topics are all negative and attacking. There might be people afraid of being attacked. There might also be people that just have had enough of the Obama bashing, including the veiled topics like this one. I am close to that point myself. Then you can have the entire political forums to post Conservative views, and high 5 each other. So it goes. I am not an educated man, but I can clearly see how things work here. See you at another debate, with the same teams as here.

 

[KarissaMann05]

Nobody. And I do mean nobody should feel afraid to speak out their minds on an issue they feel strongly about in AD (or anywhere else). Ever! The real problem (a big reason for some for not speaking up) is fearing the backlash by those who use belittlements and ad hominems as a lancet. And to personally attack and demean those who feel otherwise. It's an ugly, ugly cycle I see. Instead of attacking the argument, people would rather attack the person. And this is a sign of frustration rather than agree to disagree and have at it.

Never be afraid to speak your mind. Ever. Even if I or others disagree strongly.

Heartily agreed...

 

[Bebonang]

That is why we should get move on and try to find any thread that is interesting to anybody and you.

I think this is not a debate but it'd rather a personal. It's forward and backward...

I know it is personal when discussing about babies, human right (homeless and starving people), animal rights, religion rights, and wars. We need to discuss about our experience in deafness and our Deaf Culture, because we are Deaf right here on AD. Not this personal topics, please. It is all news and most of the news in newspaper and media news are just to fabricate to make you all believe what they say in the news. Most of the reporters want to make big bucks to make readers believe that the stories are true, just like tabloid newspapers. Same with local newspapers. Very few can bring the true story but that is unlikely. Can we move on to other topic like deafness?

 

[saywhatkid]

Quote:
Originally Posted by kokonut
Nobody. And I do mean nobody should feel afraid to speak out their minds on an issue they feel strongly about in AD (or anywhere else). Ever! The real problem (a big reason for some for not speaking up) is fearing the backlash by those who use belittlements and ad hominems as a lancet. And to personally attack and demean those who feel otherwise. It's an ugly, ugly cycle I see. Instead of attacking the argument, people would rather attack the person. And this is a sign of frustration rather than agree to disagree and have at it.

Never be afraid to speak your mind. Ever. Even if I or others disagree strongly.

Heartily agreed...

I agree with the "speak your mind" part of this. The reason it sometimes gets to a belittlement of character is when nobody listens to the other side. Shouting the same things back and forth is not just a sign of frustration, but a sign of ignorance. A closed mind lets nothing enter.
The constant pasting of links and graphs; the red font corrections, and so on can be intimidating. Some of these members might not have a solid command of writing, and fear being ridiculed. Thing is, if nobody stands up and says anything, it becomes a bulletin board instead of a discussion.
My reasons for blocking the member above are partly due to the redundancy of being corrected, as if thinking differently is wrong. I do not feel the same urgency to post and defend my opinions. I say what I want, and move along. I don't feel every opinion I voice is a guantlet being thrown down. Feel free to correct me, again...:roll:

 

[Foxrac]

Can't just we move on?

They agreed the baby was not able to survive and it's better to leave him die.

Other posters agreed the baby was able to survive and it's better to give him a chance.

We have different opinions.

Of course, gal.

There's no win or lose situation over premature baby.

 

[faire_jour]

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.

Just because his chest was moving does NOT mean he was actually breathing. I doubt he was making the gas exchange neccesary for breathing. His lungs would not have been developed enough to do that.

 

[Lissa]

Just because his chest was moving does NOT mean he was actually breathing. I doubt he was making the gas exchange neccesary for breathing. His lungs would not have been developed enough to do that.

Yep, I was born at 28 weeks and my lungs were still a bit underdeveloped so a 22 weeker would not have developed their lungs much

 

[faire_jour]

No, it's a valid point he is making. The doctors NEVER even looked. They didn't examine him. They decided he should die before he was even born soly due to their rules and regulations.

If other doctors in the UK were human enough to break those regulations that's good for them, but it's still a valid point.

There are also doctors willing to go to jail rather then abort a baby so at least some doctors will follow their concience reather then the rule book.

But since there rule book said no help for under 22 week premmies, and this baby was 21 week and 5 days, Kokunut is right to say that the doctor didn't even look at him and decided his fate prior to birth.

Which is completely unethnical but legal all the same.

A doctor examines a baby constantly throughout the pregnancy and birth. It is nerely impossible that they didn't know the baby's condition before it was born. (Assuming they never even touched it after birth, which I DOUBT!)

 

[Reba]

Just because his chest was moving does NOT mean he was actually breathing. I doubt he was making the gas exchange neccesary for breathing. His lungs would not have been developed enough to do that.

I guess we'll never know because the attending staff didn't bother to check on the baby's lung development or true age. They decided "hands off" before the baby even made his appearance.

 

[Liebling:-)))]

Evidence-Based Ethics and the Care of Premature Infants

Practices and Policies in the United States and Canada


The Future of Children -

Results Fifty-six infants (39 percent) survived for six months. Survival improved with increasing gestational age; none of 29 infants born at 22 weeks' gestation survived, as compared with 6 of 40 (15 percent) born at 23 weeks, 19 of 34 (56 percent) born at 24 weeks, and 31 of 39 (79 percent) born at 25 weeks. There were seven stillbirths at 22 weeks' gestation and four stillbirths at 23 weeks. The more immature the infant, the higher the incidence of neonatal complications as determined by the number of days of mechanical ventilation, the length of the hospital stay, and the presence of retinopathy of prematurity, periventricular or intraventricular hemorrhage, or periventricular leukomalacia. Only 2 percent of infants born at 23 weeks' gestation survived without severe abnormalities on cranial ultrasonography, as compared with 21 percent of those born at 24 weeks and 69 percent of those born at 25 weeks.

NEJM -- The Limit of Viability -- Neonatal Outcome of Infants Born at 22 to 25 Weeks' Gestation


My British friends & I shared our view on this situation. Yes we can understand the pain of this woman but we also understand the doctor´s side, too.

Is it okay to spending a huge amount on a baby that has less than 1% chance of survival?

Are you missing the fact that the woman had been pregnant 7 times including 5 miscarriage?

We have trouble to beleive this woman´s side against the doctor. We feel that she don´t want to see that her baby has less than 1% chance of survival.

Fact: it has nothing do with healthcare but each clinic doctor make its decision. It´s their job as doctor to save patient´s life.

Read this article:

Sarah says: “The doctor said that Jayden was very underdeveloped and would be stillborn. I told him that I just wanted him to live.”

Baby denied medical treatment and handed back to his mother to die - mirror.co.uk


We have trouble to beleive this woman´s side against the doctor. We feel that she don´t want to see that her baby has less than 1% chance of survival.

Fact: it has nothing do with healthcare but each clinic doctor make its decision either they can save or not. It´s their job to save patient´s life.

Yes I feel her pain after read her heartbreaking story but it is no different than any other woman who can´t have any children or has lost a child.

 

[Liebling:-)))]

A doctor examines a baby constantly throughout the pregnancy and birth. It is nerely impossible that they didn't know the baby's condition before it was born. (Assuming they never even touched it after birth, which I DOUBT!)

Exactly