I looked up sites on the NHS and how they with hold treatment and so forth.

I also believe this happens in the US. I have neighbors that this same thing has happened to.

Daughter claims father wrongly placed on controversial NHS end of life scheme - Telegraph

So you really want to believe the health system is out for your best interest?

It's obvious there is a current problem. I am always shocked at the sheer amount of american posters on the Health boards that are asking questions when they should be in front of a doctor.

Even if that is so ,why would you not attempt to find out as much about your condition as possible. Everything the doctor tells me or my family gets researched by us anyway.

The Daily Mail has written about a mother who tried to get intensive care treatment for her newborn preemie because the baby was born 2 days early .

Quote:

---

They ignored her pleas and allegedly told her they were following national guidelines that babies born before 22 weeks should not be given medical treatment. …

---

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/...51_468x300.jpg

That's the NHS for you.

Tom, that link is to a picture only.

Now, talking about babies, that's up my alley. Babies born before 24 weeks are not considered viable. Even at 24 weeks IF they survive, they live with a multitude of problems that are permanent and irreversible.

Oops try this

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

Another baby in born under the same conditions has so far survived .
Born at just 22 weeks - Amilla is not yet allowed home | Mail Online

Quote:

---

She has suffered respiratory and digestive problems, as well as a mild brain hemorrhage, but doctors believe the health concerns will not have major long-term effects.
"Her prognosis is excellent," said Dr. Paul Fassbach, who has cared for Amillia since her second day.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by J_9

Babies born before 24 weeks are not considered viable. Even at 24 weeks IF they survive, they live with a multitude of problems that are permanent and irreversible.

---

J_9 when a baby is born before 24 weeks and are not considered viable does the hospital not do anything to help the babies? I have to admit I am totally ignorant to what happens at hospitals with babies.

If the women were in the States the doctors would not have refused care because of some central planner's guidelines. Do we want to subject everyone in the country to triage rules to contain costs ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spitvenom

J_9 when a baby is born before 24 weeks and are not considered viable does the hospital not do anything to help the babies? I have to admit I am totally ignorant to what happens at hospitals with babies.

---

The standard of care in most hospitals is to do nothing. Now, remember that we have a two week window either way. The baby could actually be 20 weeks OR 24 weeks. Gestation is not an exact science.

I have yet to see a 22 weeker, that survived, live without ANY permanent complications. Most times there will be lung problems, mental retardation, etc. At 22 weeks the baby has hardly finished "baking."

Here is a pic of a 22 week gestation baby.
http://www.foxnews.com/images/263519...tiny_baby1.jpg

The prognosis is rarely good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

If the women were in the States the doctors would not have refused care because of some central planner's guidelines. Do we want to subject everyone in the country to triage rules to contain costs ?

---

Again, the standard of care is 24 weeks. Now not all hospitals go by this. Some go over and above the standard by trying to keep younger gestational babies alive. But isn't this playing God?

The baby that survived was born in Miami . Clearly she would've been sentenced to death in England.

Most of Miami's hospitals go above the national standard of care. They have some great NICU's there. But again, isn't it playing God? This baby is going to have a multitude of permanent problems as it grows. The doctor can't say for sure right now if she is going to be fine. He doesn't know that. It will be later in life, around the age of 5 or so, when the mental functions will be detected.

Quote:

---

But isn't this playing God?

---

Not at all. There was a time when it was universally understood that humans could not break the 4 minute mile . Now we know with improved technology and knowledge it's possible .

These guidelines are a cost determination and nothing more. Would the mother of the babie denied gladly paid any price and sacrifice for her baby ? Of course ;so the factor involved is a cold calculted "public cost " . That is the point . The mother and child were not given the option.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

It's obvious there is a current problem. I am always shocked at the sheer amount of american posters on the Health boards that are asking questions when they should be in front of a doctor.

---

So... you are against people doing research about their illnesses?

Better that they should remain ignorant so that the government can make decisions for them without their complaints.

That's not how we do things in America.

Elliot

Quote:

---

The prognosis is rarely good

---

What is the prognosis of lung cancer ? Not very good is it. Does any hospital deny chemo and radiation treatment because of that fact ?

When I was a kid I remember my Aunt having a baby long before the due date. And now that you put that picture up of this baby it just brought a flood of memories back from when I was like 9 years old. That is exactly what my cousin looked like in the one picture they have of her.

I remember my mom being upset because the hospital wouldn't do anything to help her. But like you said odds are they won't survive. Do they ever try to save any of those babies? Or are the health problems later on in life so great that they usually don't?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by J_9

Most of Miami's hospitals go above the national standard of care. They have some great NICU's there. But again, isn't it playing God? This baby is going to have a multitude of permanent problems as it grows. The doctor can't say for sure right now if she is going to be fine. He doesn't know that. It will be later in life, around the age of 5 or so, when the mental functions will be detected.

---

I think it would be playing god to say "This kid is going to have problems, and so to avoid those problems (and the monetary costs to society), we're going to let the baby die."

Giving the baby a fighting chance at life and leaving the baby's future in G-d's hands is the one way to guarantee that the doctors AREN'T playing god. If the doctors do everything they can to help the baby survive and the baby still dies, then we KNOW that it was G-d's will that the baby not survive. If the doctors give up and the baby dies, we don't know if that was G-d's will or just a consequence of poor care.

I say give the baby that fighting chance.

Elliot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

The mother and child were not given the option.

---

But does the mother know the price of the option? Is that mother properly informed and prepared to care for a baby/child/adolescent/adult that will most likely need a lifetime of medical care? Does the mother understand the costs involved? Does she completely understand that her child most likely will be autistic or mentally retarded, have a PEG tube... I could go on and on.

Most mothers that I deal with speak from their emotions... "save my baby at all costs," but don't know the ramifications of their decision. They don't believe us when we run through the gamut of problems that they will have to live with.

Now what I mean by playing God is that at 22 weeks the heart is not fully developed. By this I mean that the ductus arteriosis rarely closes at birth, leaving the child with possible multiple heart surgeries. To avoid surgeries drugs have to be given, but this is not always a cure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

I think it would be playing god to say "This kid is going to have problems, and so to avoid those problems (and the monetary costs to society), we're going to let the baby die."

Giving the baby a fighting chance at life and leaving the baby's future in G-d's hands is the one way to guarantee that the doctors AREN'T playing god. If the doctors do everything they can to help the baby survive and the baby still dies, then we KNOW that it was G-d's will that the baby not survive. If the doctors give up and the baby dies, we don't know if that was G-d's will or just a consequence of poor care.

I say give the baby that fighting chance.

Elliot

---

I totally agree with you Elliot. The baby does deserve a fighting chance, but do the parents know what they are in for if the baby lives?

I know parents like this. While they are happy that their babies survived (one that I know is now 9 years old) they are dealing with mental retardation, hospitalizations every winter because the lungs were not fully developed at birth, etc. They say they love their child, but if they had it all to do over again, they would not want their child to suffer the way he does now.

Yes no doubt if the child survives it will have a challenging life. Sarah Palin understood the challenges her baby would have and opted to have her child knowing that.

I don't know if the mother was fully informed . All I know is that regardless the choice was taken out of her hands.

The ironic thing is that in the US we are more likely to take a chance on the life of premies . As a result the WHO says that we have a lower infant survival rate and used those numbers against us in their ranking . But I think we make the correct moral choice .