Daily Mail
British health official: Babies born at 23 weeks should be left to die
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…
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.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
I would agree with you if there were no government involvement, but right now this isn’t the case–this involves money from taxpayers, and it is as finite as it is for a family.
That is heartbreaking. I am looking at my own father, who is 82 and starting to experience a little confusion, and praying he dies before a nursing home becomes a more distinct possibility. He is not afraid of death, but he fears living like that. Bette Davis purportedly had a pillow that said, “Old age ain’t for sissies.” Really, though, life ain’t for sissies–there are many things that are really difficult and really painful.
DrMagnolias on March 7, 2011 at 12:01 PM
The same argument could be made for a destitute parent who has no money to feed their child. Leaving that child to starve “wouldn’t be an issue” if the parent had to pay for it. As a society do we want to leave that child to starve?
txmomof6 on March 7, 2011 at 12:02 PM
And, a conservative such as myself should be aware that we have limited resources to allocate to something that has very little chance of success.
SC.Charlie on March 7, 2011 at 12:03 PM
All resources are limited. The fact that you say “we have limited resources” indicates that you feel you have a say in the matter by virtue of being a taxpayer. This is one of the primary reasons I oppose ObamaCare. Because the minute the taxpayer is included in the life or death healthcare decision making process it ultimately leads to the discussion we are having.
txmomof6 on March 7, 2011 at 12:08 PM
Not all 23 wk babies are in the same state of development and health. Some have a chance and most have none except to die after artificially prolonged agony. The reality is pretty gruesome. http://tiny.cc/l7nnt
“I have cared for many infants at the edge of viability. It is always emotionally draining. There is no justice to it. The intensive measures involved to keep a 22 to 23 week-old infant alive is staggering, and it is ugly. I once cared for an extremely premature infant who had an IV placed on the side of her knee due to such poor IV access. When that IV infiltrated, I gently pulled the catheter out, and her entire skin and musculature surrounding the knee came with it, leaving the patella bone exposed. I have seen micro-preemies lose their entire ear due to scalp vein IV’s. I have watched 500 gram infants suffer from pulmonary hemorrhages, literally drowning in their own blood. I have seen their tiny bellies become severely distended and turn black before my very eyes, as their intestines necrose and die off. I have seen their fontanelles bulge and their vital signs plummet as the ventricles surrounding their brains fill with blood. I have seen external ventricle drains placed in their brains, and watched as the collection containers filled with blood that looked like crude oil. I have seen these tiny infants become overwhelmingly septic as we pump them full of high powered antibiotics that threatened to shut down their kidneys, while fighting the infection. I have seen many more extremely premature infants die painful deaths in the NICU, then live.”
My feeling is that no set guideline should be in place, but that realities ought to intrude on the matter as much as wishful thinking.
SarahW on March 7, 2011 at 12:09 PM
I suspect that is one reason shared by everyone opposed to ObamaCare–as long as our money is involved, we are involved.
DrMagnolias on March 7, 2011 at 12:14 PM
You can’t compare this to a starving child. Crunch the numbers. You have one thousand of these pre-mature children. Ninety will go home and only one child will live a normal life. The other 89 will have some form of what I would call severe disability. The cost of hospitalization of each of these children could easily approach one million per child, including those that die.
SC.Charlie on March 7, 2011 at 12:18 PM
SarahW on March 7, 2011 at 12:09 PM
One factor people don’t often consider in the treatment of extreme prematurity is the simple fact that treatment of these infants has lead to medical advances in their treatment. What 10 years ago was unthinkable is now possible. Most likely the reason the results in this country are better than those in Great Britain is because of the training and advances that we have gotten through trial and error, because we tried in the first place.
txmomof6 on March 7, 2011 at 12:21 PM
If it is not our government that is involved in the decision by Obamacare or Medicaid, it will be the insurance companies. Unless the couple is independently very wealthy.
SC.Charlie on March 7, 2011 at 12:23 PM
SC.Charlie on March 7, 2011 at 12:18 PM
I think you can philosophically. Besides I bet the number expended by the government on food stamps, WIC, free and reduced lunch etc. is greater than the number expended by the government on the costs of premature infants. Just guessing. Bottom line it is all a balancing call.
txmomof6 on March 7, 2011 at 12:24 PM
When do we stop trying to play God. This is the stage of development at 23 weeks, 925 grams equals 33 oz.:
Week 23
Gestational age: 22 weeks old.
Embryonic age: Week nr 21. 20 weeks old.
* The fetus reaches a length of 28 cm (11.2 inches).
* The fetus weighs about 925g.
* Eyebrows and eyelashes are well formed.
* All of the eye components are developed.
* The fetus has a hand and startle reflex.
* Footprints and fingerprints continue forming.
* Alveoli (air sacs) are forming in lungs.
SC.Charlie on March 7, 2011 at 12:33 PM
And how did that happen?
BobMbx on March 7, 2011 at 12:36 PM
When we stop being human.
txmomof6 on March 7, 2011 at 12:36 PM
Heartless, but has a familiar ring to it.
Knott Buyinit on March 7, 2011 at 12:37 PM
At what one point in a pregnancy do we accept the fact that the termination of a pregnancy is just a natural abortion, something that we should accept as an act of God?
SC.Charlie on March 7, 2011 at 12:39 PM
I am against abortion, but recognizes that it occurs naturally when something goes wrong with a pregnancy.
SC.Charlie on March 7, 2011 at 12:44 PM
SC.Charlie on March 7, 2011 at 12:39 PM
Sorry but I don’t understand your question.
txmomof6 on March 7, 2011 at 12:44 PM
I’m not sure I’m understanding your question, so please tell me if not. If I do understand, this discussion originates in Britain, with socialized medicine, so their taxpayers are involved; however, if we can’t kill the ObamaCare beast, it will apply here, as well.
DrMagnolias on March 7, 2011 at 12:45 PM
At the point people aren’t willing to pay for it with their own money (as opposed to money extracted from someone else by the force of law or contract, like taxes or insurance payouts).
Count to 10 on March 7, 2011 at 12:46 PM
My feelings on this topic may not be popular, but I don’t think that parents who can’t afford to raise their children should be having children. It is probably cheaper to toss their parents in jail where they can’t reproduce than to permit them to require us to feed more of their children. And we put their child up for adoption. It just pisses me off when I read about Orthodox Jews in Israel with fifteen kids begging for welfare. They could put down the Torah and get a job, or stop having so many kids.
thuja on March 7, 2011 at 12:46 PM
I am not familiar with the situation with Orthodox Jews doing this. However, people who have children and can’t provide for them does tax my patience. Sadly, the children don’t have a chance from the beginning.
SC.Charlie on March 7, 2011 at 1:01 PM
I worked in the British health care system as a surgeon and it is deeply flawed. I saw many patients who could have been saved in the US die there, because of lack of timely access, lack of access to the best technology, and the restriction of advanced treatments based on the patients age. The indigent poor in the US receive better and faster treatment than the average person in the British system.
redeye on March 7, 2011 at 2:13 PM
I don’t think anyone is arguing about that issue. The issue is, should we expend enormous resources on a 23 old child that has been naturally aborted, when only one out of a thousand will grow-up not having a serious disability. What is your opinion?
SC.Charlie on March 7, 2011 at 3:06 PM
I don’t typically post, but this particular headline hit right at home for me. My daughter was born at 23 weeks.
Now, I have no idea if their 9% survival rate for Britain is accurate or not, but in the US— and this was 9 years ago— the major hospitals here in the US boasted a 40-50% survival rate. Our hospital was one of those that had a 50% survival rate.
My daughter had to have a number of procedures that are considered standard in the NICU: laser surgery to counter ROP [retinopathy of prematurity] and a very minor heart surgery. She had some treatments for a couple of infections she got while there. She came home on oxygen for about 2 months– low dose level. Other than that, she went for regular treatments and appointments just like any other baby.
My daughter is 9 years old now. She’s a low brown belt in karate. She scores at age level in every subject except math. She has an auditory processing disorder [which, I might point out, also occurs in full-term, healthy kids]. I know a number of people who have kids in the micropreemie range— the kids all do well and are totally functional.
My cousin’s son was born at 28 weeks…also, technically, a micropreemie. He is gifted academically and has won numerous gymnastics competitions. He’s focusing on band right now and plays weekly in his church.
I won’t lie and say that micropreemies don’t often have health issues [very often vision since micropreemies--- particularly those at the 23-24 week mark are pretty much assured of needing surgery to combat ROP; sensory issues; sometimes hearing], but it’s not like even full term kids don’t produce similar problems. My daughter wears glasses, and we had to work through some initial sensitivity to the feel of water on her skin; but even her neurologist pointed out that everyone has a sensory issue about something.
I can tell you this much. My daughter was 100% human at birth at 23 weeks. And she darned well deserved to be treated like one.
TXRedhead on March 7, 2011 at 10:20 PM
I hope you will take this in the spirit it is intended–I certainly understand your passion about this, and please believe I am sincere in my gratitude that your daughter is alive and well. Of course she deserved to be treated as human–she was human before she was ever born. Treating her with dignity is our moral obligation–I simply believe that dignity does not necessarily entail extraordinary procedures to keep someone alive (this comes from my Christian belief that God will use all experiences, even those outside His perfect Will, to our ultimate benefit and His ultimate glory). And I do believe our attitude matters as we address these things–do we view these children as less valuable and blithely toss them aside, or do we view them as fully human and grieve at losing them, even as we opt not to take extraordinary measures?
DrMagnolias on March 8, 2011 at 5:10 AM
Isn’t every major medical procedure ‘extraordinary?’ If a person has cancer, why waste the money putting a person through all the suffering and misery to treat it? They may or may not live, and who’s to say their quality of life would be so much better off?
Or what about burn victims? Certainly, their suffering is intense and the extraordinary treatments for them run into astronomically high numbers. In the end, is it worth it? Shouldn’t we just let them die and put a lovely spin on it so we can still feel morally superior about what really amounts to the fact that we’re valuing money over a human life?
Micropreemie births at the 23-24 week mark account for a whopping 1 percent of all births. It’s not like these kids are draining the system of all of its money.
Perhaps those of you who are so sure you know whom should live and whom should die could take a walk out of your sanitized bubble and meet some of these kids before you declare them to be such a waste of money and resources. Maybe you could take a look at how many full-term kids are born into this world with all kinds of health issues and disabilities that apparently ARE worth saving.
When you’ve watched these kids smiling and running and you’ve heard them laughing with their friends, then you come back to me and tell me how horrible it was that we selfish parents let them live instead of thinking of taxpayer money and let them die. When you’ve done all that, then you can tell me how God is so terribly resentful that we intervened by using technology He provided for the purpose of saving young lives.
No matter how much you want to spin it, at the end of the day you either side with life or you side with money. Because the suffering argument really doesn’t cut it. People suffer all the time. There are kids in cancer centers right now who are suffering horribly. I don’t see anyone here proposing that those parents are selfish for wanting them to live or for fighting for any and every treatment that will allow them that opportunity. This all comes down to money— and the love of it over human life. And the Bible is right…it truly is the root of all evil.
TXRedhead on March 8, 2011 at 10:17 AM
In a world where resources are infinite, we do not have to make choices; we don’t live in that world. As distasteful and upsetting as you may find it, very few people can afford these procedures. Forcing others to pay for them is immoral. It has nothing to do with seeing these children smiling, running, or laughing, nor does it have anything to do with living in a sanitized bubble. And it doesn’t come down to loving money–it comes down to the simple fact that there is no money.
DrMagnolias on March 9, 2011 at 6:05 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2