PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues Brit Doc Opens a can of worms...


HonestChieffan
03-07-2011, 07:45 AM
Interesting point of departure for dialog....

Brit doc says that allowing a premie to die if born in first 23 weeks of pregnancy is the right thing to do.

Id have to come down on the side of the doc. Im a believer in quality of life and I have seen in my family and others the destructive nature of medical science treating every last issue as an experiment. Leading someone to live a horrible existence after we know they will never have any quality of life is not an economic issue, its just, for me, not right.

So applying that to babies would seem logical.

Not sure how that sits with others, some will say Im just a baby killer, may lose my conservative card for a day or two even plus Im pro life on the abortion issue. And with every person having a different take Im not sure how you implement such a thing.

Food for thought however....




(Daily Mail) — Babies born after just 23 weeks of pregnancy or earlier should be left to die, a leading NHS official has said.

Dr Daphne Austin said that despite millions being spent on specialised treatments, very few of these children survive as their tiny bodies are too underdeveloped.

She claimed keeping them alive is only ‘prolonging their agony’, and it would be better to invest the money in care for cancer sufferers or the disabled.

Dr Austin, who advises local health trusts how to spend their budgets, said doctors were ‘doing more harm than good by resuscitating 23-weekers’ and that treatments have ‘very marginal benefit’.

The NHS spends around £10million a year resuscitating babies born this early and keeping them alive on incubators and ventilators.

But despite round-the-clock care from teams of experienced doctors and nurses, just 9 per cent leave hospital — the rest die. And only one in 100 grows up without some form of disability. The most common include blindness, deafness and cerebral palsy.

Guidelines state that doctors should not try to resuscitate babies born under 22 weeks, as they are too underdeveloped, but those born between 22 and 25 weeks should routinely be given intensive care.

After advice from doctors, parents should have the final say on what attempts should be made to keep them alive. Almost all are resuscitated as families cling to the hope that they will pull through against the odds.

The legal limit for abortion is 24 weeks. Dr Austin said that the care given to such tiny infants should be weighed up in the same way as the NHS decides whether or not to fund treatment for dying cancer patients.

‘If it was my child, from all the evidence and information that I know, I would not resuscitate,’ she said.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1363637/Babies-born-23-weeks-left-die-says-NHS-chief.html

chiefsnorth
03-07-2011, 08:03 AM
Rationing: an idea to get used to.

Amnorix
03-07-2011, 08:35 AM
I will never understand why we're sometimes more humane to animals than to people.

dirk digler
03-07-2011, 09:04 AM
Hypothetically if this is ok to do to babies why couldn't a similar stance be taken towards treating end of life seniors?

Last year Medicare paid $55 billion just for doctor and hospital bills during the last two months of patients' lives.

HonestChieffan
03-07-2011, 09:11 AM
Hypothetically if this is ok to do to babies why couldn't a similar stance be taken towards treating end of life seniors?

Last year Medicare paid $55 billion just for doctor and hospital bills during the last two months of patients' lives.

What would we decide if the economics were removed from the equation. For me that is the real issue. Get money out of the way and ask what is the best decision for the individual.

dirk digler
03-07-2011, 09:24 AM
What would we decide if the economics were removed from the equation. For me that is the real issue. Get money out of the way and ask what is the best decision for the individual.

I think most people would want to pass peacefully as possible and their family should respect that.

HonestChieffan
03-07-2011, 09:27 AM
I think most people would want to pass peacefully as possible and their family should respect that.


at a time of the individuals choosing

dirk digler
03-07-2011, 09:39 AM
at a time of the individuals choosing

That is not always possible though

Dallas Chief
03-07-2011, 11:15 AM
Hypothetically if this is ok to do to babies why couldn't a similar stance be taken towards treating end of life seniors?

Last year Medicare paid $55 billion just for doctor and hospital bills during the last two months of patients' lives.

The answer is the $55B. Where are the doctors and hospitals going to make up $55B in lost revenue if they just let people die like that? The answer- by charging others more for their services.

I'm not being a smartass about it either. It is a business, like it or not, and they can't have a large chunk of their annual revenue stream just "put to sleep" like that.

ClevelandBronco
03-07-2011, 11:29 AM
What would we decide if the economics were removed from the equation. For me that is the real issue. Get money out of the way and ask what is the best decision for the individual.

That's an interesting exercise, and it's worth considering in our deliberations, but removing a necessary factor from an equation tends to give us an answer that may not be fully correct. Removing economics in our examination is just about as useful as removing morality or ethics and examining the question from that perspective.

We're pretty far out on the wire on this one, and we don't just have a can of worms, we've packed a 55-gallon drum of them on our backs.

I hold no defensible position on this question.

mnchiefsguy
03-07-2011, 12:11 PM
My daughter was born at 28 weeks, and I can't imagine not giving her a chance to live (She is now a healthy 11 year old). I know there is a difference between 23 and 28, but every situation is different, and once a child is born (and some would argue before it is born, but that is a separate debate), the baby has the right to live. Yes, being blind, deaf, or having cerebral palsy would suck, but it is better than being dead. Many people with these conditions have happy productive lives. Should we just start only allowing perfect babies to live?

The Mad Crapper
03-07-2011, 12:25 PM
I will never understand why we're sometimes more humane to animals than to people.

ROFL

Did you watch 60 minutes last night? It was great, it was all about kids in America living in day rate motels and going to bed hungry. I guess that's what Obama meant back in '08 about "making sacrifices"...

(CBS News) Unemployment improved a bit last month but it is still nearly nine percent and the trouble is job creation is so slow, it will be years before we get back the seven and a half million jobs lost in the Great Recession. American families have been falling out of the middle class in record numbers. The combination of lost jobs and millions of foreclosures means a lot of folks are homeless and hungry for the first time in their lives.


One of the consequences of the recession that you don't hear a lot about is the record number of children descending into poverty.


The government considers a family of four to be impoverished if they take in less than $22,000 a year. Based on that standard, and government projections of unemployment, it is estimated the poverty rate for kids in this country will soon hit 25 percent. Those children would be the largest American generation to be raised in hard times since the Great Depression.



http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/...20038927.shtml

Help is on the way kids! Obama is gonna build a high speed rail! LMAO



http://thepeoplescube.com/images/The_Oval_Office_Obama_260.jpg
"I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views."

chiefsnorth
03-07-2011, 12:33 PM
Before long, it would be ok after a normal term birth if the kid had chronic health problems, is retarded, etc. Eugenics is a natural outworking of the welfare state model when you consider that it must be maintained financially.

Hydrae
03-07-2011, 12:49 PM
Rationing: an idea to get used to.

The legal limit for abortion is 24 weeks. Dr Austin said that the care given to such tiny infants should be weighed up in the same way as the NHS decides whether or not to fund treatment for dying cancer patients.

What gives you that idea? ;)

ClevelandBronco
03-07-2011, 12:55 PM
My daughter was born at 28 weeks, and I can't imagine not giving her a chance to live (She is now a healthy 11 year old). I know there is a difference between 23 and 28, but every situation is different, and once a child is born (and some would argue before it is born, but that is a separate debate), the baby has the right to live. Yes, being blind, deaf, or having cerebral palsy would suck, but it is better than being dead. Many people with these conditions have happy productive lives. Should we just start only allowing perfect babies to live?

I have two girls, one past 11 and one approaching that age. They are a joy to a father's heart and an immeasurable blessing.

Should we wonder whether long ago we should have stopped treating people old or young who have what is considered a terminal condition? No. Medically speaking,* we cannot.

We cannot ignore that today we are able successfully to treat conditions that once were terminal, and that tomorrow we will be able to treat even more. This is true most remarkably perhaps for the conditions of the very old and the very young, but it is equally — if not as dramatically — true for all conditions.

We cannot escape the fact that most advancements in treatment are achieved in achingly slow increments as we enjoy success with this patient, and endure failure with these many others. Yet, despite these many failures, we do not wait until we can cure every patient before we attempt to treat each patient.

Does this make each patient a potential guinea pig of sorts? Yes. Such is the nature of medical advancement. The very fact that we are discussing the possibilities of what should happen to a child born after just 22 weeks in the womb shows us how far we have come, one tragedy (or at least one painfully difficult challenge) after another. We continue to play out new strategies against terminal cancers because not to treat them is to resign the game and declare that we can never advance beyond our current position. Treatments that fail still allow us to glimpse ideas for other treatments that we might someday call successful and commonplace.

*Economically speaking, we may have no other choice but to draw somewhat arbitrary lines that cannot be crossed. If this sounds directly contradictory to my previous post, that's because it is. This is, in part, why I admit that I hold no defensible position on the subject. I'm still bumbling my own way toward one. Dirk pointedly brings us back to the economic reality (and I have no clear answer):

Hypothetically if this is ok to do to babies why couldn't a similar stance be taken towards treating end of life seniors?

Last year Medicare paid $55 billion just for doctor and hospital bills during the last two months of patients' lives.

mnchiefsguy
03-07-2011, 01:17 PM
I have two girls, one past 11 and one approaching that age. They are a joy to a father's heart and an immeasurable blessing.

Should we wonder whether long ago we should have stopped treating people old or young who have what is considered a terminal condition? No. Medically speaking,* we cannot.

We cannot ignore that today we are able successfully to treat conditions that once were terminal, and that tomorrow we will be able to treat even more. This is true most remarkably perhaps for the conditions of the very old and the very young, but it is equally — if not as dramatically — true for all conditions.

We cannot escape the fact that most advancements in treatment are achieved in achingly slow increments as we enjoy success with this patient, and endure failure with these many others. Yet, despite these many failures, we do not wait until we can cure every patient before we attempt to treat each patient.

Does this make each patient a potential guinea pig of sorts? Yes. Such is the nature of medical advancement. The very fact that we are discussing the possibilities of what should happen to a child born after just 22 weeks in the womb shows us how far we have come, one tragedy (or at least one painfully difficult challenge) after another. We continue to play out new strategies against terminal cancers because not to treat them is to resign the game and declare that we can never advance beyond our current position. Treatments that fail still allow us to glimpse ideas for other treatments that we might someday call successful and commonplace.

*Economically speaking, we may have no other choice but to draw somewhat arbitrary lines that cannot be crossed. If this sounds directly contradictory to my previous post, that's because it is. This is, in part, why I admit that I hold no defensible position on the subject. I'm still bumbling my own way toward one. Dirk pointedly brings us back to the economic reality (and I have no clear answer):


Indeed. When my daughter was born, the doctor at the time told us we were lucky she was born then and not five or tens year earlier, as she probably would not have made it. As harrowing as it was for us as parents at the time, the doctor was actually very confident that she was going to be okay. Medicine is advancing at such a fast rate, what is untreatable today can be treatable tomorrow.

CoMoChief
03-07-2011, 05:39 PM
I was born 3 months early, weighed 3 lbs at birth, could fit in my dad's hand just about....lived first 6 months in an incubator, had a shit ton wrong with me medically when I was born...though now you wouldn't be able to tell nor could you tell when I was growing up. It hasn't affected my development in anyway I can think of at least, for the most part I've been healthy as an ox my entire life. And that was in 1983 when I was born. 30yrs later I would have to believe that our medical field has improved at least a little since then.

Gonna have to disagree with the doc on this one...of course there's a different circumstance with every incident.

HonestChieffan
03-07-2011, 05:46 PM
I was born 3 months early, weighed 3 lbs at birth, could fit in my dad's hand just about....lived first 6 months in an incubator, had a shit ton wrong with me medically when I was born...though now you wouldn't be able to tell nor could you tell when I was growing up. It hasn't affected my development in anyway I can think of at least, for the most part I've been healthy as an ox my entire life. And that was in 1983 when I was born. 30yrs later I would have to believe that our medical field has improved at least a little since then.

Gonna have to disagree with the doc on this one...of course there's a different circumstance with every incident.


You sorta trump the doc...you did it, to the doc its theory. Experience once again shows real merit.

Saulbadguy
03-07-2011, 05:47 PM
I will never understand why we're sometimes more humane to animals than to people.

Religion.

Saulbadguy
03-07-2011, 05:48 PM
I was born 3 months early

/thread

MagicHef
03-07-2011, 05:49 PM
The majority of stroke victims end up with health problems that last the rest of their lives, and can be expensive to treat. I think that once it is apparent someone is having a stroke, regardless of age, they should just be wheeled over to the nearest cemetary.

tiptap
03-08-2011, 08:56 AM
The developmental patterns of the fetus follows a consistent path. The designation of a fetus being 23 weeks is a determination that the lungs are two rigid to allow air passage and the skin is not resolved enough to act as a barrier and to contained the rest of the body. The determination based upon due date is not the major discriminator for a Neonatologist's assessment of the gestational age. It is a developmental determination.

tiptap
03-08-2011, 09:31 AM
I have talked to my second child about my wife's and my discussions with gastroenterologists and obstetricians about aborting his pregnancy when my wife developed a life threatening condition that was severely aggravated by the pregnancy. We choose otherwise but I let him know that I expect him to be able to entertain my termination as I get older and I am not able to act upon that myself. We have discussed the parameters and I am confident that he is humane and loving enough to follow my wishes. Can I get the government out of these decisions? Is my lack of religious views not merited protection?

ClevelandBronco
03-08-2011, 10:21 AM
Is my lack of religious views not merited protection?

Yes.

Hydrae
03-08-2011, 01:19 PM
I was born 3 months early, weighed 3 lbs at birth, could fit in my dad's hand just about....lived first 6 months in an incubator, had a shit ton wrong with me medically when I was born...though now you wouldn't be able to tell nor could you tell when I was growing up. It hasn't affected my development in anyway I can think of at least, for the most part I've been healthy as an ox my entire life. And that was in 1983 when I was born. 30yrs later I would have to believe that our medical field has improved at least a little since then.

Gonna have to disagree with the doc on this one...of course there's a different circumstance with every incident.

3 months = ~12 weeks
39 weeks - 12 weeks = 27 weeks

Great story and wonderful to hear.

However, I don't think 27 weeks is nearly the same as 22 weeks. A lot of development happens in 5 weeks of a pregnancy.

mnchiefsguy
03-08-2011, 01:21 PM
If the baby is born alive, then not only is there a moral obligation to do everything possible to help the baby survive, but there is a legal one as well. Once the baby is born, the baby is a citizen of the United States, and should be entitled to all the rights you or I have, which includes due process.