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

Status
Not open for further replies.
But most premature babies would have survive ok. They didn't even look at her chances.
 
Lighthouse77 said:
But most premature babies would have survive ok. They didn't even look at her chances.
Click to expand...

That is my whole point here, and that is exactly what has me so outraged at this. IF the doctors had gone back to check as the mother had requested, would there have been a different outcome or not?

The fact that they didnt check as requesting is in essence what is pissing me off about this. Would it have killed them to come and look?

We will never know if the baby would have had a chance or not now will we?

If they had looked and still determined that this baby wouldnt have made it that would have made a world of difference to me.

The article even states that one of the midwives came back CRYING because they refused to even look.
 
faire_jour said:
NO, most babies born this early do NOT live. In fact, in the history of the world there have been, what, 2?
Click to expand...

Im sure there have been more than 2 that have managed to survive this early. 22 weeks is the cut off, she had the baby what at 21 weeks and 6 days or something like that? Basically this baby was born 1 day before the 22 week cut off. 1 day???
 
Bear said:
OFC i do know what it means. I wouldnt be a former nurse or a medical billing and coding student currently if I didnt!. It means that for example, a baby born with no brain is not going to be able to survive no matter what measures were given to it. Satisfied?

Ok, now to move past my intelligence doubts, I can see that a deaf baby being thought of that way bothers you. But there was a point in time when a deaf baby was thought of this way. There was a point in time when a blind baby was thought of this way. There was a point in time when a downs syndrome baby was thought of this way.

Ok, this doesn't make sense. If a child has a disability incompatable with life, they are allowed to die without intervention. How on earth do you allow a deaf or blind child to die?? They won't!!

Arent you so glad that they STOPPED thinking of these babies this way?

I can see that there are some babies born, such as one without a brain, where no amount of measures being taken would help the baby. However, based upon the fact that this baby managed to survive almost 2 hours on its own, based on the fact that to survive those 2 hours, it had to have functioning lungs *yet needing assistance to keep functioning* and a functioning heart, then this baby deserved a chance.

The thing is, we dont and probably never will know exactly what was wrong or not wrong with this baby. But we do KNOW, that this baby was born apparantly alive and breathing on its own and had a heartbeat. That alone should have been enough to give it at least a fighting chance.

Most of the time, technology is developed through trial and error. As long as the parents are being made aware that the baby may or may not live and are willing to put their babies through this, then I say give them a chance.

Some of the biggest medical breakthroughs were made simply because people were willing to take a chance on even the most riskiest propositions.

They had the means and the way to make that baby as comfortable as possible, WHILE trying to help the baby survive.

These interventions are extremely painful and invasive. Being comfortable and helping survive are not generally compatable either.

Now, I'm going to ask the impossible of all of you. Picture yourselves as that baby being born. Would you have wanted the chance at life? Or would you have wanted to be given up on without being given a chance at all?
Click to expand...

I was at that point. We were told that the next day we would need to terminate life support on my 2 day old baby. I was told that there was nothing they could do. I was told that my child would be removed from a machine, and put into my arms to die. She would have never woke up, I would have never seen her eyes. She was on too many drugs, and in too much pain to allow her to wake up.

Don't presume that everyone here hasn't been there. Some of us have.
 
Bear said:
Im sure there have been more than 2 that have managed to survive this early. 22 weeks is the cut off, she had the baby what at 21 weeks and 6 days or something like that? Basically this baby was born 1 day before the 22 week cut off. 1 day???
Click to expand...

One hour makes a difference in micro-preemies! One day is huge.

And majority of babies die at 22 weeks too.
 
faire_jour said:
I was at that point. We were told that the next day we would need to terminate life support on my 2 day old baby. I was told that there was nothing they could do. I was told that my child would be removed from a machine, and put into my arms to die. She would have never woke up, I would have never seen her eyes. She was on too many drugs, and in too much pain to allow her to wake up.

Don't presume that everyone here hasn't been there. Some of us have.
Click to expand...


faire_jour said:
I was at that point. We were told that the next day we would need to terminate life support on my 2 day old baby. I was told that there was nothing they could do. I was told that my child would be removed from a machine, and put into my arms to die. She would have never woke up, I would have never seen her eyes. She was on too many drugs, and in too much pain to allow her to wake up.

Don't presume that everyone here hasn't been there. Some of us have.
Click to expand...

Ok fine whatever, your not gonna change my opinion and Im so clearly not going to change yours.

Im sorry to hear about your baby. However, the difference is your baby was given a chance, and was found that even with the chances it wouldnt have helped. As a mother I could have accepted that.

Where I have a hard time accepting this, is that the doctors REFUSED to even LOOK at the baby at the mother's and MIDWIVES request. Now what would that have hurt?

This is not only a ethical dilemna but a moral one as well. Where does a life begin? Who has the right to decide who is worth saving and who isnt? Does life begin when there is a heartbeat or when it is what is considered a VIABLE baby?

If we allow this choice to be made by the doctors, what stops the doctors from deciding that a baby born needing a heart transplant isnt viable?

In this case, the mother said she wouldnt have minded no other help being given AS LONG AS they at least put her baby in an incubator. They couldnt even do that.

Im sorry, I just dont see how anyone can condone this and not feel as outraged as some of us apparently do.
 
One doctor saying to another doctor, "About the termination of
a pregnancy, I want your opinion. The father was syphilitic (venereal
disease). The mother tuberculous (small lumps on skin). Of the four
children born, the first was blind, the second died, the third was
deaf and dumb, the fourth also tuberculous. What would you have done?"

"I would have ended the pregnancy". "Then you would have murdered
Beethoven".


Granted this was taken out of an article written by an anti-abortionist, but still true! Politics: Abortion Debate - Pro-Life Stance

I am looking for more proof of history of deaf babies being considered as incompatible with life.
 
Bear, I do not know all the facts regarding this case. Hence why I'm not going to judge the doctors because I don't have their version of the story. For all I know, the baby could have had other factors that were imcompatiable with life. Anencephaly is one such condition. Now I'm not saying this baby had that. Since we don't have all the medical facts regarding the case, it's impossible to judge the doctors.
 
Sorry I had to take a little breather and then come back to this thread. Im also looking for *not a good researcher here* the history of deaf being considered as incompatible with life.

Deafskeptic, I realize there could have been other issues that would have been considered. But, here is what I dont understand, if there was why not just say so? The hospital has yet to make a statement concerning that.

Silence does sometimes speak louder. Their silence to me, tells me that they have something to hide. If there was something more that we dont know about, why not come out with a statement such as *There were other underlying issues here, that we cannot discuss at this time due to privacy of the patient* Or something like that? Instead no statement issued makes it sound like the hospital is scrambling to cover their butts in case of a lawsuit.

At least it does to me. Others may not see it this way, but I do and I cant help feeling the way that I do about this issue.
 
Bear, the doctors and hospitals cannot comment because of patient privacy. Remember that Privacy Policy paper that you sign and no one ever reads? It governs the situations in which health providers can disclosed medical info and giving info to the media is not one of them. That's all that the health providers are saying. The mother can file a suit for negligence and she will have access to all of the medical records. If an arbitrator or jury finds negligence, the health providers will be held responsible.

Have you thought about the mother in this case. She may have mental issues. She's just been through a traumatic experience. Remember that the first stage is denial. I'm not saying that this woman is lying but she may not be accurately giving details. My heart goes out to her.

I understand that this is a very emotional issue. Maybe it's too emotional to discuss. We've already had The People's Court here (on page 12 of comments) and there's no real answer. One can only feel empathy for the mother and baby.
 
Bear said:
Sorry I had to take a little breather and then come back to this thread. Im also looking for *not a good researcher here* the history of deaf being considered as incompatible with life.

Deafskeptic, I realize there could have been other issues that would have been considered. But, here is what I dont understand, if there was why not just say so? The hospital has yet to make a statement concerning that.

Silence does sometimes speak louder. Their silence to me, tells me that they have something to hide. If there was something more that we dont know about, why not come out with a statement such as *There were other underlying issues here, that we cannot discuss at this time due to privacy of the patient* Or something like that? Instead no statement issued makes it sound like the hospital is scrambling to cover their butts in case of a lawsuit.

At least it does to me. Others may not see it this way, but I do and I cant help feeling the way that I do about this issue.
Click to expand...

Incompatable with life means that if left alone WILL die. A deaf or blind baby, left alone, will NOT die.
 
Faire joure I know what incompatible to life means thank you very much! In fact, I have decided I am going to quit posting in this thread because your acting like i know nothing is pissing me off!

At one time, a deaf baby full term, who may have needed a little assistance as most babies do upon birth. Would not have been given the assistance simply because they were deaf. Satisfied now?
 
Bear said:
Faire joure I know what incompatible to life means thank you very much! In fact, I have decided I am going to quit posting in this thread because your acting like i know nothing is pissing me off!

At one time, a deaf baby full term, who may have needed a little assistance as most babies do upon birth. Would not have been given the assistance simply because they were deaf. Satisfied now?
Click to expand...

Number one, how would they know at birth that they baby is deaf?
Number two, do you have any proof that has EVER happened?
 
I will ask my Research teacher to help me research this very subject. I am not a good researcher to find the information for you on the internet so will ask for her help.
 
Deaf and blind? That's low.

Wow. Um... History is riled with deaf-born and blind-born babies that managed to live onto adulthood since the dawn of time. The only comparable examples you have are the ones that are exposed to the elements out of shame or cultural reasons, not medical reasons.
 
faire_jour said:
Number one, how would they know at birth that they baby is deaf?
Number two, do you have any proof that has EVER happened?
Click to expand...

They could easily see that the two parents are genetically deaf according to their record (remember, we have historical documents after documents how doctors and professional who feel deaf people should be sterilized because they can make more deaf children) .
 
Lighthouse, I have a dominant non-syndrome genetic hearing loss. Genetic counseling for hearing loss makes me nervous.
 
Bear said:
Jillio while everything you say is true, how can we possibly ignore the fact that the doctors absolutely refused to even see the baby at the mother's request?

Who knows, if they had, they may have realized that this baby should be given a chance. Following some guideline just because it is there and legally allows them to get away with this, to me is outright unethical.

We will never change each others opinions, and Im not gonna continue trying. It is just within my opinion, that the hospital would look better if they had made a statement regarding the baby's condition. Not making a statement looks like a case of yes, they did follow the guidelines, and dont care what the public thinks.

We fought and were outraged when they wanted to stop treatment on that woman Terry something or other, as she was in a coma or something, dont quite remember the story.

Why not the same for the babies?

Regardless of whether if someone is compatible with life or not, should we still not try to at least give them a chance at a life, WHILE making them comfortable?

I dont care about the costs involved at all! If we can afford to support some dumb ass like Octomom and send her donations and watch a reality show with her, then we can afford to pay the medical costs for babies such as these.

Current technology may not support them, but we will never develop that technology if we dont try through trial and error.

I know if I had been that mother, even already having two kids at home, I would have liked to have at least seen some effort being made to help my baby. Even if it had still died. At least then I would have known that all efforts were made to give my baby a chance at life. If it didnt live anyways, then I could say to myself that a higher power decided it just wasnt meant to be.

I agree with this mother, it would be hard to find peace not know what may have happened if given a chance.
Click to expand...

That's just it, Bear. We don't know that the doctors did not assess this infant in the delivery room. There were medical staff present at the time of birth. We do not know what went on at that moment, or even afterwards. All we have is this mother's side, and while I sympathize with her loss of her child, I also have no doubt that her story is greatly influenced by her grief. I doubt that her memory of the events is completely accurrate, especially if she was sedated in any way. I am only saying that judgement cannot be passed either way without more fact.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top