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

[Lissa]

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?

The baby was dying, so it would be stupid to sue them for something that was completely out of their hands

 

[jillio]

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.

You don't know that there was a chance for survival. You cannot determine that without medical information pertinent to the case, and a developed comprehension of the implications of that medical information.

 

[jillio]

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."

Exactly. Judgement is being passed without any understanding at all of medical science or biology.

 

[faire_jour]

Because the baby didn't die Naturally.
She died due to NHS.
I can understand exactly how that woman felt after my mom was treated while she was dying of cancer. She could have been saved but she wasn't. Same as this baby could have been saved but she wasnt.

The baby had a greater than 99% chance of death. Why are you so convinced it could have been saved? And saved for how long? 3 hours, to then die of a massive brain bleed? To be put through surgery after surgery to die 4 days later from oxygen leaking from it's lungs? To have 3 or 4 strokes and countless seizures to then die?

That is better than a peaceful passing being held by his mother? I don't agree.

 

[Lissa]

the baby COULD NOT have been saved, dreama, it was too early and sick obviously to survive.

 

[jillio]

The baby had a greater than 99% chance of death. Why are you so convinced it could have been saved? And saved for how long? 3 hours, to then die of a massive brain bleed? To be put through surgery after surgery to die 4 days later from oxygen leaking from it's lungs? To have 3 or 4 strokes and countless seizures to then die?

That is better than a peaceful passing being held by his mother? I don't agree.

So true. And the baby did die naturally. She died naturally from the complications of a severely premature birth.

 

[Aleser]

I don't know the whole story, obviously, but if the facts are: the mother gave birth to a 21 week infant. The infant was determined not viable. The infant was kept with mother taking no heroic measures to save their life.. then I see no fault with the hospital.

At that age, the infant as a standard has something less than a percent of a chance of survival. Those that do survive, as mentioned, have abnormally advanced lungs. Obviously, this baby was determined not to be one of those very, very few.

What would "saving" the baby mean, dreama? subjecting the baby to intubation just to find out that their lungs really can't work? Attempting to restart it's heart and crushing all of it's fragile ribs? Attaching it to monitors and sticking it in a plastic box until it bled into it's own brain? Sticking IVs in it's feet and just about anywhere else in attempt to find a tiny little vein? Drugging a system that can't process it's mother's milk, or air, with their best arsenal? The baby would not have lived either way. But it would have been tortured before death and their mother would be witness to that torture.

Please tell me how that's a less traumatic death for mother or for baby. I would love to hear it.

 

[jillio]

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.

You are right: it isn't everyone. I stand corrected.

 

[jillio]

I don't know the whole story, obviously, but if the facts are: the mother gave birth to a 21 week infant. The infant was determined not viable. The infant was kept with mother taking no heroic measures to save their life.. then I see no fault with the hospital.

At that age, the infant as a standard has something less than a percent of a chance of survival. Those that do survive, as mentioned, have abnormally advanced lungs. Obviously, this baby was determined not to be one of those very, very few.

What would "saving" the baby mean, dreama? subjecting the baby to intubation just to find out that their lungs really can't work? Attempting to restart it's heart and crushing all of it's fragile ribs? Attaching it to monitors and sticking it in a plastic box until it bled into it's own brain? Sticking IVs in it's feet and just about anywhere else in attempt to find a tiny little vein? Drugging a system that can't process it's mother's milk, or air, with their best arsenal? The baby would not have lived either way. But it would have been tortured before death and their mother would be witness to that torture.

Please tell me how that's a less traumatic death for mother or for baby. I would love to hear it.

Thank you for laying it on the line. Heroic measures are, quite often, less humane than any other option.

 

[Aleser]

Thank you for laying it on the line. Heroic measures are, quite often, less humane than any other option.

I'm all for heroic measures when the baby has enough lung development to survive. Yes, it'll hurt the baby, but they'll have a chance to go on in life and grow up. In this case, the baby did not have that chance.. I think 'aggressively' treating them would have been very, very cruel to everyone involved.

 

[jillio]

I'm all for heroic measures when the baby has enough lung development to survive. Yes, it'll hurt the baby, but they'll have a chance to go on in life and grow up. In this case, the baby did not have that chance.. I think 'aggressively' treating them would have been very, very cruel to everyone involved.

Could not agree with you more.

 

[kokonut]

Cruelty is to know that a baby has a chance to survive and not do a whit. It's on par with abortion.

 

[faire_jour]

Cruelty is to know that a baby has a chance to survive and not do a whit. It's on par with abortion.

That is the whole point! The baby didn't have a chance of survival. THere is, what, 1 case, in the history of the world? And we have no idea if there were complication. It is possible, no, likely, the baby had complications that made it impossible to live. Plus, just being born that early is NOT compatable with life.

 

[jillio]

Cruelty is to know that a baby has a chance to survive and not do a whit. It's on par with abortion.

You don't know that. You are not a physician, and have no information regarding the medical status of this infant. Cruelty is to use this mother's grief for a political agenda. Cruelty and insensitivity.

 

[deafskeptic]

You don't know that. You are not a physician, and have no information regarding the medical status of this infant. Cruelty is to use this mother's grief for a political agenda. Cruelty and insensitivity.

I'm no doctor and I do not know for sure if it was possible that the doctors in that preemie's case could have done more nor do I know all the facts in this case.

From what is known to me, The baby that was "left to die" likely had serious problems that were incompatible with life. Even if he had been born two days later, he would have had serious problems. Babies do not develop at the same rate. I have to say I feel bad for that mother. But we have only her side. I don't know what the doctors would have said about her baby's case. We may not be getting the whole story.

What the op fails to mention is that Amillia is quite rare and she's the youngest preemie ever. I am very happy for the parents. That baby is very lucky. Doctors clearly thought she was viable so she wasn't left to die.

 

[CJB]

The whole point is that we only know what is known from the article, and there is most likely more to the story than it.

 

[jillio]

I'm no doctor and I do not know for sure if it was possible that the doctors in that preemie's case could have done more nor do I know all the facts in this case.

From what is known to me, The baby that was "left to die" likely had serious problems that were incompatible with life. Even if he had been born two days later, he would have had serious problems. Babies do not develop at the same rate. I have to say I feel bad for that mother. But we have only her side. I don't know what the doctors would have said about her baby's case. We may not be getting the whole story.

What the op fails to mention is that Amillia is quite rare and she's the youngest preemie ever. I am very happy for the parents. That baby is very lucky. Doctors clearly thought she was viable so she wasn't left to die.

Exactly. The only medical information we have is that this woman experienced complications during previous pregnancies, leading to 5 miscarraiges, and that she also experienced complications during this pregnancy.

 

[Foxrac]

Jillio, Is it reason about medical cost on premature baby is so expensive and NHS has no way to cover it?

 

[jillio]

Jillio, Is it reason about medical cost on premature baby is so expensive and NHS has no way to cover it?

No, I honestly don't think that is it. I think it is a matter of doctors having information pertinent to this case that supported the fact that with or without intervention, this child was not compatible with life.

 

[kokonut]

Jillio, Is it reason about medical cost on premature baby is so expensive and NHS has no way to cover it?

Which would be pure bullshit using the same reasoning that we think we have puhlenty of money into the trillions we can spend on health care for each and every Americans (not illegals...verbotten!)

C'mon!!