Born too soon...

Discussion in 'Politics & Law' started by AngelsPeak, Oct 30, 2009.

  1. AngelsPeak

    AngelsPeak Wanna play?

    I admit to being pretty uneducated when it comes to doctors and procedures they must follow. But, I really was surprised by this article..

    Premature baby 'left to die' by doctors after mother gives birth just two days before 22-week care limit | Mail Online

    As I read it I thought to myself, "wow I'm glad the doctors here in the US don't have to follow those same guidelines." Then I read this..

    Are the guidelines fair? Is it a waste of time and money to try and save babies born this soon? Amillia has proven the odds can be beaten. Shouldn't other preemies be given the same chance?
     

  2. CaptainObvious

    CaptainObvious Son of Liberty V.I.P.

    I don't believe that it is a waste of time and money to try and save babies born this soon. As you said, Amillia proved the odds can be beaten. I believe othe premies should be given the same chance.
     
  3. Merc

    Merc Certified Shitlord V.I.P. Lifetime

    There are specific dates that matter heavily when it comes to child rearing and those odds you're talking about can change drastically over the course of one week.

    Week 20 at Pregnancy Week-by-Week from StorkNet

    The following site suggests that between weeks 19-22 a lot of development occurs. Birthing a baby under 20 weeks is extremely, extremely risky and will most likely result in death or a severely incapacitated newborn if a living birth is even possible.

    Just because one child beats the odds does not make the system unjust. Going strictly by medical research, a child under 21 weeks is almost always a lost cause if a birth happens.
     
  4. AngelsPeak

    AngelsPeak Wanna play?

    I think it's that week that's bothering me the most. Do you know how common it is for the OB doctor to ask a woman the date of her last period and for her to not even be sure? What if she was off by a week when she made the guess?
     
  5. Merc

    Merc Certified Shitlord V.I.P. Lifetime

    That's all they have to go by though. If the woman is not exact or as exact as she can be, it''s going to make a huge difference. Going after a child that is under that age of weeks is pointless because they simply can't live with the body they have so far. They need more time in the oven, so to say.

    Of course you would hope that doctors would make all the effort they can but if they know the age, it can be a huge waste of resources.
     
  6. AnitaKnapp

    AnitaKnapp It's not me, it's you. V.I.P. Lifetime

    Yeah...but if it was off even just a little bit when they tried to figure up the date of conception...then they could be disposing of a baby that meets the requirements for the resources.

    I think they should always try to do what they can to save them.
     
  7. Merc

    Merc Certified Shitlord V.I.P. Lifetime

    I agree that after reading the article, those doctors should have tried a bit harder. But to defend them, they were following guidelines.

    However, that's also why I'm not a fan of what they did, because they stuck to the guidelines. The baby was clearly capable of surviving (if the mother's testimony of the baby moving, having a strong heartbeat and breathing on his own are true) so the doctors should have chucked the rulebook. They claim that it's because "it's not in the best interests of the baby" to be born under 23 weeks.
     
  8. Wade8813

    Wade8813 Registered Member

    This whole thing seems really messed up. There just seems to be so many things wrong, I don't know where to start. The doctors, the guidelines; everything.
     
  9. ysabel

    ysabel /ˈɪzəˌbɛl/ pink 5

    Ok, so they followed the guidelines (which sucks btw because gestational week is not really reliable - can go to 14 days discrepancy), and they have to make a cut off somehow.

    But something in this makes me wonder why not try what you can (wasted resources or not) to save. After all, if they die later , which they assert will happen 99% of the time, at least they know they'd have tried their best to prevent that.

    The whole "it will prolong the suffering or pain of the baby" argument scares me a bit. What if in the future, they'd decide the same thing for babies if they've detected defects in utero (thanks to high tech ultrasounds)...like, not to have them anymore because disabled children will just suffer later?
     
    Boredie and CaptainObvious like this.
  10. Wade8813

    Wade8813 Registered Member

    Only 1 percent survive; instead of trying to improve those odds - let's make it 0 percent!
     

Share This Page