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

[dreama]

I can understand why doctors said no but its totally wrong. even if they though the baby had no chance they could have helped!!!!

There is a petition you can sign about this to change the law to allow doctors to interviene in cases where babies are born under 23 weeks.
Please sign it here: Petition to: change the law to allow children born alive the right to life. | Number10.gov.uk

I've signed it. Please sign it too if you live in the UK.

 

[somedeafdudefromPNW]

This is a conflicting issue.

I am a premature too. While every doctors are sworn to keep their patients alive and healthy, they are not really allowed to let their patients suffer unnecessarily.

I think the difference is... doctors know that premies such as you and me, dreama, will turn out fine. However within the second trimester... that is when organs are not sufficient enough to develop on their own without having a major development problem-- and we are not medically or technologically advanced enough to repair that.

 

[dreama]

This is a conflicting issue.

I am a premature too. While every doctors are sworn to keep their patients alive and healthy, they are not really allowed to let their patients suffer unnecessarily.

I think the difference is... doctors know that premies such as you and me, dreama, will turn out fine. However within the second trimester... that is when organs are not sufficient enough to develop on their own without having a major development problem-- and we are not medically or technologically advanced enough to repair that.

You are assuming they will suffer but that isn't always the case.

I sometimes have migraines and bad eye pain, but I am always glad that nobody decided I didn't have a right to life.

EVERYONE should have that right.

It's the euthanasisa argument all over again, but I really don't want people to decide that my life is worth any less then someone who came full term and is not disabled like me. Nobody has that right to decide a thing like that and it really doesn't matter how premmie the baby is.

If they are born alive they should be given the chance to survive.

Beside which some people suffer from abuse, neglect, malnutition, being born female in the wrong place, and a host of other reasons. Do you think they should be killed too?

My biggest barrier as a disabled person is other people's attitude, and this kind of talk isn't helping any.

 

[somedeafdudefromPNW]

A lot of premature deaths have to do with under-developed respiratory system or under-developed nervous system (ie. brain bleedouts.)

Fetuses don't have the ability to have gas-exchange in their lungs until around 22, 23 or 24 weeks of age. Before that, doctors will have to figure out how to set up an artifical womb with an artificial umbilical cord to maintain them.

Before the "limit of vialability" was due to lack of medical knowledge and inability keep thema live due to lack of technology. Now, that wall is placed at 22 or 23 weeks because there is no technology to assist fetuses to gain access to oxygen without a functioning set of lungs.

It is not really a good death to die if you are forced to suffocate slowly.

 

[Oceanbreeze]

A lot of premature deaths have to do with under-developed respiratory system or under-developed nervous system (ie. brain bleedouts.)

Fetuses don't have the ability to have gas-exchange in their lungs until around 22, 23 or 24 weeks of age. Before that, doctors will have to figure out how to set up an artifical womb with an artificial umbilical cord to maintain them.

Before the "limit of vialability" was due to lack of medical knowledge and inability keep thema live due to lack of technology. Now, that wall is placed at 22 or 23 weeks because there is no technology to assist fetuses to gain access to oxygen without a functioning set of lungs.

It is not really a good death to die if you are forced to suffocate slowly.

Let me also add that alot of babies also die from infections and gastro-intestinal issues.

 

[sallylou]

Since the mother had so many miscarriages, it's likely that the baby had a chromosomal birth defect or something was wrong with the mother's placenta.

Here's some info, which includes positive info, like new treatments for premies:

Neonatal Death - March of Dimes

 

[dreama]

It is not really a good death to die if you are forced to suffocate slowly.

Well I'd agree to that which is what happened here. The baby took a whole Hour to die. Simply from being withdrawn treatment.

As far as I know the most premmie baby is doing ok at 21 weeks 6 days but unfortunately this poor baby was born on the wrong side of the atlantic so they were condemed to die slowly due to lack of treatment.

the story upset me yesterday and I feel even more upset that other premmies should condone such blatent discrimination.
I don't get it at all.

why NO baby should die slowly from being refused treatment. It is so wrong. So upsetting that anyone should think that's ok.

 

[jillio]

Usually, when an infant can't be saved they are given care and comfort while nature takes it's course. They will never just leave an infant to die without providing comfort to it. They always handle the impending death of the infant in a dignified manner so as to maintain sensitivity to the parents .

Exactly. They made the infant comfortable, and allowed her to die in her mother's arms. Quite compassionate.

 

[dreama]

Since the mother had so many miscarriages, it's likely that the baby had a chromosomal birth defect or something was wrong with the mother's placenta.

Far from being an excuse for doing nothing about this baby, the fact she has miscaraged before and finally given birth to a live baby, which was just denied treatment makes it all the more cruel on the mothers part.
They should have made every effort to save that babies life.
Instead she was just alowed to hold it while it took a whole hour to die.

I signed her petition and hope other people from UK sign it too.

I just can't understand why people should support such blatent discrimination soly due to age and politics.

 

[jillio]

No one is considering the fact that this severely premature infant no doubt had medical problems that were incompatible with life. That no matter how many heroic measures were taken, this infant was simply not capable of surviving.

 

[deafdyke]

I think doctors should save premature babies, whenever it seems hopeless or not.

Sigh....... there's a HUGE diffy between just preemie babies and micro preemies. Most micro preemies end up with VERY profound birth defects.
I actually wonder if the mom may have an undx chromosome disorder which then affected her thinking. (which is why she had such difficulty carrying to term)
And you know.......this isn't just a public health issue.......You know, if the baby had been born on THIS side of the Atlantic, the same thing probaly would have happened......Insurance companies do the exact same thing....make decisions in the name of profit!

 

[jillio]

Sigh....... there's a HUGE diffy between just preemie babies and micro preemies. Most micro preemies end up with VERY profound birth defects.
I actually wonder if the mom may have an undx chromosome disorder which then affected her thinking. (which is why she had such difficulty carrying to term)
And you know.......this isn't just a public health issue.......You know, if the baby had been born on THIS side of the Atlantic, the same thing probaly would have happened......Insurance companies do the exact same thing....make decisions in the name of profit!

Exactly. We are not priviledged to the medical information regarding this preemie. Chances are that the same thing would have occurred right here given certain medical information regarding this child's condition. And it might not have even had anything to do with insurance, but simply that this child had too many complications to be compatible with life.

 

[Oceanbreeze]

Sigh....... there's a HUGE diffy between just preemie babies and micro preemies. Most micro preemies end up with VERY profound birth defects.
I actually wonder if the mom may have an undx chromosome disorder which then affected her thinking. (which is why she had such difficulty carrying to term)
And you know.......this isn't just a public health issue.......You know, if the baby had been born on THIS side of the Atlantic, the same thing probaly would have happened......Insurance companies do the exact same thing....make decisions in the name of profit!

Exactly. We are not priviledged to the medical information regarding this preemie. Chances are that the same thing would have occurred right here given certain medical information regarding this child's condition. And it might not have even had anything to do with insurance, but simply that this child had too many complications to be compatible with life.

both of you!

Why on Earth certain people can't get "get this" is beyond me. Doctors take an oath to do no harm. As hard as it is, that sometimes means withholding treatment is the best thing for the patient. In no way is an infant just left to die without being given comfort measures. If that were to happen, that Dr would be brought up on charges! I think certain people need to look at this objectively instead of allowing clouded judgment to prevail and undermine this issue.

 

[kokonut]

I agree. If a baby is viable after birth, however young, and the doctor do not take any measures to help the baby survive despite the only drawback was that the baby was born too early and has difficulty breathing and such, I'd sue the hospital for malpractice and murder.

Now, since G.B's health care providers and hospitable are protected by the govt, so how can you sue a govt then?

 

[Oceanbreeze]

No one is considering the fact that this severely premature infant no doubt had medical problems that were incompatible with life. That no matter how many heroic measures were taken, this infant was simply not capable of surviving.

Not everyone, Jillio. I hear what you're saying here. People are concerned about viablity. They aren't taking into acct the severity of the medical complications this infant undoubtedly had. Just because you can pull a baby from the womb alive doesn't mean it will do well and thrive. Alot of premature infants die even with aggressive intervention from doctors. Some times, these babies simply aren't meant to survive and certain people need to accept that.

 

[CJB]

Not everyone, Jillio. I hear what you're saying here.

I do too.

 

[kokonut]

the thing is, give each of those babies a chance...a fighting chance rather than use money or 1% chance of success as an excuse not to do anything about it. Not helping when there is even a chance, however remote, is no different from abortion. It'd be murder for an initially viable baby not given the chance to survive.

 

[somedeafdudefromPNW]

I agree. If a baby is viable after birth, however young, and the doctor do not take any measures to help the baby survive despite the only drawback was that the baby was born too early and has difficulty breathing and such, I'd sue the hospital for malpractice and murder.

Now, since G.B's health care providers and hospitable are protected by the govt, so how can you sue a govt then?

I suggest reading up on the prenatal development. How the hell is a baby is suppose to breathe at 21 or 22 weeks if there's nothing for them to breathe WITH?

So "difficulty breathing" should be "can't breathe at all."

 

[Lissa]

Well I'd agree to that which is what happened here. The baby took a whole Hour to die. Simply from being withdrawn treatment.

As far as I know the most premmie baby is doing ok at 21 weeks 6 days but unfortunately this poor baby was born on the wrong side of the atlantic so they were condemed to die slowly due to lack of treatment.

the story upset me yesterday and I feel even more upset that other premmies should condone such blatent discrimination.
I don't get it at all.

why NO baby should die slowly from being refused treatment. It is so wrong. So upsetting that anyone should think that's ok.

Actually I know of a baby who was actually born at 21/22 weeks who is now 4/5 and fine from the UK

 

[somedeafdudefromPNW]

the story upset me yesterday and I feel even more upset that other premmies should condone such blatent discrimination.
I don't get it at all.

In 1987, if I was born a week earlier, I wouldn't had been saved due to the fact it was at the limit of technology of helping infants breathe. You just have to accept that limits are there. Now there are some that develop faster than others. I was on the "lower end" of it.

I accepted that as a premie, that if I was born a few weeks earlier, I wouldn't be around just because Alberta's healthcare didn't have the technology to keep babies alive at around 26 weeks or so. They didn't have the same drugs here that would act as a surfactant in the lungs at that age back then. Period.

The biggest hurdle in 2009 is how to get infants to have access to oxygen without the traditional gas-exchange method. So far, no one figured that out yet.

The problem is, this is a news report. No details on the actual development of the baby was given other than the gestational period. So is skewed to give only the mother's side. Some babies who are born early are given a chance, but that is based on the judgement call of the developmental rate of the fetus. If you notice, most of the ones that survive at 21/22 weeks have fully-functioning lungs well developed ahead of other fetuses that are born at 21/22.

Well I'd agree to that which is what happened here. The baby took a whole Hour to die. Simply from being withdrawn treatment.

why NO baby should die slowly from being refused treatment. It is so wrong. So upsetting that anyone should think that's ok.

Um, more like if she was given treatment, her death would had has been prolonged. Would you want it to die slowly for five or six hours? Or would you prefer an hour?