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

Status
Not open for further replies.
jillio said:
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.
Click to expand...

GB...never given a chance...died.
Florida...given a chance...and lived to grow up.
 
kokonut said:
GB...never given a chance...died.
Florida...given a chance...and lived to grow up.
Click to expand...

Are you DUMB?

The case in Florida, the baby was able to breathe on her own right from birth. It even says so that the only reason why the doctors helped the baby in the first place was that it showed attempts of breathing! Otherwise they would had not helped her! Read your own damn articles sometimes.

The case in Britain? We don't know! We just know that majority of infants that are born between 20 to 24 gestational weeks don't have the sufficient respiratory system for medical technology to assist them.

While they are parallel only in age, it's just apples and oranges in this case.
 
kokonut said:
GB...never given a chance...died.
Florida...given a chance...and lived to grow up.
Click to expand...

And, most likely, two very different medical profiles. I see you haven't returned that plastic stethoscope you are using yet.
 
I am with Souggy..I feel sticky about this.
 
Really seems simple. The doctors that made the decisions; do you think they could sleep well, knowing they let a life go? There are no transplant options for so tiny an infant. If I were the doctor, I would have needed restraints to keep me from helping a baby that had ANY CHANCE of survival. It just does not make ethical sense. That is all I care to say on this.
 
jillio said:
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.
Click to expand...

Thanks for explanation.

I'm just ignore kokonut's BS, anyway.
 
dreama said:
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 Simply from being withdrawn treatment.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.
Click to expand...
I agree with you. I can not image how she suffered slowly dying in one hour while my grandson was born "dead" for few minutes and they worked on him then he came back alive. This little girl should be allow to get treatment till she decide to live or to die. I can not image how my niece would have deliver her child 22 weeks, which she almost did but thank to miracle medicine stopped premature labor. Now she is 31 weeks pregnant. Big relief. Now I read this, I can not image how others think she should not be allowed to have treatment and not give her a chance to live or die with the help of doctors.
 
faire_jour said:
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.
Click to expand...

If the baby was breathing, struggling so, even outside the womb there is always a chance when you have technology on your side. Not every "fetus" grow equally so throughout the developmental stages.

It wasn't long ago when we didn't even have the technology to help even a 30 week old "fetus" outside the womb. Advances in medical technology have made it possible to save babies born at earlier and earlier stages of development. Even we're at a stage to create a "2nd womb."

Doctors have also vastly improved their technologies for keeping preemies alive. In the 1970's, fewer than 20 percent of newborns weighing less than 2.2 pounds -- approximately three months premature -- survived. In the three decades since then, improvements in the technology have boosted the survival rate to 70 percent, and it is even higher for babies born closer to term. (For unknown reasons, girls do a little better than boys.) In rare cases, doctors are saving even smaller babies, who would have had no chance only a few years ago. In September 2004, for example, a Chicago woman gave birth to a baby girl weighing only 8.6 ounces: she was small enough to curl up inside a toddler's slipper. Dr. Jonathan Muraskas, a neonatal specialist at Loyola University Medical Center near Chicago, was convinced that he could save the girl. She was discharged on Feb. 8, weighing 5 pounds 8 ounces -- more than 10 times what she weighed when she was born five months earlier.
Click to expand...

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/14/magazine/14PREEMIE.html?_r=1

Micro-preemies who grew up.
http://www.childrensmn.org/web/whatsnew/184762.pdf

And who is to say that there won't be a "3rd womb" as the next medical technological miracle as a replacement of the real thing for those born early?

How many of you people are preemies? Or even "micro-preemies" (under 1 3/4 lbs)?
What Is A Preemie?
 
kokonut said:
If the baby was breathing, struggling so, even outside the womb there is always a chance when you have technology on your side. Not every "fetus" grow equally so throughout the developmental stages.
Click to expand...

1) How do you know technology was on this baby's side?

2) How do you know there's always a chance when technology is on your side?
 
CJB said:
1) How do you know technology was on this baby's side?

2) How do you know there's always a chance when technology is on your side?
Click to expand...

Exactly. Technology can only do so much.
 
souggy said:
Are you DUMB?

The case in Florida, the baby was able to breathe on her own right from birth. It even says so that the only reason why the doctors helped the baby in the first place was that it showed attempts of breathing! Otherwise they would had not helped her! Read your own damn articles sometimes.

The case in Britain? We don't know! We just know that majority of infants that are born between 20 to 24 gestational weeks don't have the sufficient respiratory system for medical technology to assist them.

While they are parallel only in age, it's just apples and oranges in this case.
Click to expand...

I think it is you who should read the articles next time, especially the G.B. case. Both cases are nearly identical in terms of age and condition when both were able to breathe on their own. One had medical help, the other did not because of a medical "guideline." That's the death panel for you. Some politicians and doctors decided a cut-off date of 22 weeks as a no go when babies do grow at a different rate and it has been proven that technology has helped micro-preemies survive even at a weight of 8.6 ounces!!

Miss Capewell, 23, said doctors refused to even see her son Jayden, who lived for almost two hours without any medical support.

She said he was breathing unaided, had a strong heartbeat and was even moving his arms and legs, but medics refused to admit him to a special care baby unit.

Miss Capewell is now fighting for a review of the medical guidelines.
.
.
She said: 'When he was born, he put out his arms and legs and pushed himself over.

A midwife said he was breathing and had a strong heartbeat, and described him as a "little fighter".

I kept asking for the doctors but the midwife said, "They won't come and help, sweetie. Make the best of the time you have with him".'

She cuddled her child and took precious photos of him, but he died in her arms less than two hours after his birth.
Click to expand...

Read next time. The baby lived almost for two hours on his own...breathing...struggling to live...doctors ignore him and refused to help. And by not helping doctors essentially helped kill the baby.
 
CJB said:
1) How do you know technology was on this baby's side?

2) How do you know there's always a chance when technology is on your side?
Click to expand...

Technology and knowledge continue to improve on how to treat micro-preemies. so, what is your cut off line on when not to treat a micro-preemie? At 20% chance? 10% chance of survival? 5%? 1%?
 
Wrong. You have virtually no way of knowing that the medical condition of these neonates was identical or even similar. You don't have the medical records to support that at all.

Likewise, you don't have the medical records necessary to determine the medical history of either of the pregnancies.

Put away your toy doctors kit. All you have is a grieving mothers assertions. And any newborn will move their arms and legs. It does not mean that they are compatible with life. It is an innate reaction.
 
Amillia Taylor, the world's youngest surviving preemie, appears in this weeks issue of People Magazine.

The micro preemie was born at 21 weeks 6 days gestation, weighing less than 10 ozs and measuring just 9 1/2 inches long.

Her chances of survival were probably 0% at birth due to the fact that the extreme limit of viability is 24 weeks and not many statistics are available for a baby at that gestation.

She defied all odds and joined her parents at home of February 22 of this year. Her weight on the day she left the hospital was 4 1/2 lbs.

People magazine caught up with her family last month and had some great new to report on Amillia's progress.
Click to expand...

Growing Your Baby: UPDATE: Youngest Preemie EVER Thriving and Growing
 
One survivor. And how many that have been unable to beat those odds?
 
Ah, the old slippery slope argument with a side of antedoctal story. Not a winning argument.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top