Highly controversial. I see the logic, but I wouldn't want to make the decision.

[Shimmer]

I can't imagine being in these parents' shoes.

Quote:

Premature babies born before 22 weeks gestation should not be given intensive care treatment to keep them alive, according to a report released in Britain on Wednesday.

 

[d_flawless]

wow. take would be so so tough, at 22 weeks you're already so attached and hello, you already have the physical baby, not in womb, outside of your body at that point.
i wonder why GB has decided to do this? to keep their population healthy?

 

[quandolak]

...........

 

[quandolak]

.............

 

[Shimmer]

I'm not disagreeing with the right to life.
Nor am I disagreeing that there's always a chance.

I am saying, however, from a medical standpoint, that I can completely see where medical experts would say to leave it alone, because the risks outweigh any quality of life the child may ever have.


Like I said, I wouldn't want to be the one making the decision.

 

[lara]

Quote:

Originally Posted by quandolak The body naturally misacrries babies who are not *viable* and have extremely severe disabilities.

Cite?

 

[kimmy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by quandolak The body naturally misacrries babies who are not *viable* and have extremely severe disabilities.

theoretically, it should. but, due to human's prenatal care, it doesn't. in the animal kingdom, the mother would kill the baby itself if it was born with some kind of disability. it's natural selection. humans, i'm sure at the beginning (before medicine, etc) did the same.

you have to also think about the child. will they be happy living with a severe disability?

 

[quandolak]

.............

 

[thestarsfall]

It's not the fact that they are disabled AT BIRTH, its that if they are born at 22 weeks or prior, they are not at all fully formed, and they also are extremely susceptible to diseases and such (because it isnt until the last like 2 weeks in a full 9month gestation that the antibodies are passed into the baby). So their chance of either not having fully developed lungs or liver or kidney or something, combined with the chance of contracting some serious disease which they cannot fight combines to make it a really high chance of non-survival or a chance of survival but disabled.

However, I think that if the child is born and has all his/her necessary organs (even if they are not 100% developed) they should be given care. If they do contract a disease or if one of their organs isn't functioning at all or ceases to function after a while, THEN the family can have the choice of taking them off all the support or trying to save them.

Usually the kid will die if it is too 'unhealthy' or whatever (like, no medical advances will keep a kid alive for too long if they don't have a functioning liver) , but all babies will die if we just ignore them...

 

[Beauty Mark]

I hope that the doctors never make it a law. I could see the logic of it, but I think the decision should ultimately be up the parents, as long as they're aware of what their decision means.

 

[YvetteJeannine]

I can see the rationale of this....

I should first clarify that I DO NOT have children...Nor do I want them in the forseeable future; but that does not change that fact that I still have a 'heart', and I would want my child (if I had one) to live.

Having said that, however...I know that IF I ever gave birth to an extremely premature baby, and the odds were not in favor for the child...or if the baby were inclined to develope extreme disabilities, I would NOT want to see that child struggle. Granted, it would not be a decision I would relish making (in fact, it would be heartbreakingly hard), and I would want to know all the facts before making it...but I think I would decide to let 'nature' take it's course (ie; take the child off of any life-sustaining measures/equiptment). If the child lives....that's what was intended. If the child dies...of course I would be heartbroken, but I would realize there's only SO MUCH suffering a human can take.

I'm sure there are many people alive today with severe disabilities that are grateful to be here; it's human nature to WANT to live...Yet I think I would love my child enough to be able to let it "go" if conditions were that bad.

It's also human nature to want to keep our offspring alive....I know this...but some people have to analyze; are they simply being selfish? After all, how much pain does a severely dibilitated infant go thru?....and the infant doesn't understand it!

Modern medicine has drugs which will suppress a premature delivery...but sometimes these drugs only go so far..and the baby IS born far too premature.....Fact is, not ALL babies that "shouldn't" be born will miscarry (esp. with Western medicine)...the ones that are born with only half developed lungs, limbs, or brain....is it really worth the suffering of the baby/parents/society to make them suffer and go on, when most probably the shouldn't.....????

Yes....a hard decision to make, indeed.

 

[Kisbee]

I feel quite strongly (and hold probably quite a surprising view) about this one.

I was born at about 24 weeks, which in the 80s was just at the edge of what was considered saveable. I came off the respirator on the day that was the deadline of whether or not they thought I could breathe on my own. It was very touch and go, but I made it and don't have any disabilities or problems based on my early birth.

Saying that, I worry that people's emotions will start to take over the decision as to whether or not they should put a great deal of effort into supporting very premature babies.

This story, about a girl who is now 3, was born severly disabled but her parents fought very hard to ensure that she would be kept alive. But, they have now separated, and she has to live at the hospital because they can't take care of her. So after all that, what kind of life does she have? Her family is not taking care of her, and the article states that her mother has only visited 'three times since February' and her father 'is an infrequent visitor'.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/h...re/6073016.stm

Surely this is not the sort of life people are intending for these children.

It's important to realise that these decisions are made every day by medical staff, and these are not new boundaries, it's just that all of a sudden they've been written into guidelines so they shoot into the headlines.

 

[mzcelaneous]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shimmer I'm not disagreeing with the right to life. Nor am I disagreeing that there's always a chance. I am saying, however, from a medical standpoint, that I can completely see where medical experts would say to leave it alone, because the risks outweigh any quality of life the child may ever have. Like I said, I wouldn't want to be the one making the decision.

Like your headline, I totally understand the logic, it makes sense, but I would never want to make that decision.

 

[MarniMac]

Hmmm...I totally disagree with this. Granted its a guideline and not a rule or law, and it says that each case will be independently evaluated...AND I don't think that a lot of babies are delivered prematurely. Still, I think its amoral to advice against prolonging anyone's life, based on "what if." (What if they have disabilities? What if they die anyway? Well, I say what if they don't. And even so, its the obligation of Doctors to try no matter what). Plus, where does it stop? I mean if a preemie is going to be euthanized based on what if it developes disabilities or dies then why not euthanize everyone, because any baby or person could develop disabilities and everyone dies eventually. Sorry, I think this is really wrong.

 

[Raerae]

FYI - I'm with Shim on this one. I would hate to be put in the position these parents. As I'm sure most parents want to do everything possible to keep their children alive. No one wants to lose their baby.

Quote:

Originally Posted by quandolak The body doesnt miscarry All babies with disabilities. I should have write high percentage . Some kids dont develop disabilities till later.

From Dictionary.com

mis‧car‧riage  /mɪsˈkærɪdʒ; for 1 also ˈmɪsˌkærɪdʒ/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[mis-kar-ij; for 1 also mis-kar-ij] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

–noun 1. the expulsion of a fetus before it is viable, esp. between the third and seventh months of pregnancy; spontaneous abortion. Compare abortion (def. 1).

Technically... Babies born before 22 weeks would qualify as a Miscarriage...

Quote:

Its well known that the body miscarries fetuses with some sort of problem. Otherwise they would be carried to full term.

Perhaps children which are born so pre-mature have, "some sort of a problem. Otherwise they would be carried to full term."

It's just to due medical advances that what was once called a miscarriage is now called a pre-mature birth.

 

[quandolak]

.........

 

[nyrak]

Having a baby with severe disabilities is a life sentence for the child and the family. Who will look after it when/if something happens to parents? Being 'normal' is hard enough. I think doctors should decide or at least guide as parents are way too emotionally involved.