I'm speechless. I can't imagine this: British treatment of premature birth

[Laurie4b]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1212924/Doctors-said-Id-miscarriage-did-premature-baby-fought-life.html

 

I'm kind of in shock after reading this. I just can't imagine it.

[Merry]

.........

[Mommyof4ks]

WHAT???? That is terrible!

[LynneMcCormick]

Extremely sad! This is what universal health care is all about, saving money is more important than a life.

[Mommyof4ks]

This got me to thinking. In the US 20 weeks is considered a miscarriage (though I don't know if it is set in stone medically or just what my ob said to me years ago), so do the docs do anything to help a baby born before that or all are babies still born before that?

[KinderSafari]

If we haven't begun to pray for the hearts of people in the world, this definitely should get people realizing the seriousness of the NEED!!!

 

I mean, not even to have some COMPASSION? Is it against the law for a doctor to LOOK at the baby and say some gentle words to the mother?

 

Can't there be something like an Apgar test for premature babies?

If a, b, and c then we can provide this type of care?

and if they improve levels to d, e, and f,

this type of level is added?

 

It just can't be so black and white as to pick a random DAY for life. There need to be other factors considered.

 

Anyway, it's a good article to keep aware of the way things are currently in the world and where we can add some prayers. Respect for life.

Edited September 12, 2009 by KinderSafari

[d.g.]

I won't get into the universal health care debate part of this, but I will say that it's extremely tragic this happened, and will continue to happen to other mothers.

 

I can only think...I was sure of the conception of my now 3-month-old son only to within 3 or 4 days, since my cycles were strange when it happened. If the mother had been in the same situation, her babe could actually have been 22 weeks instead of 21w5d, especially since early ultrasound has a margin of error and he was bigger than normal for that gestation. I think I'm going to go hug my little guy a bit tighter tonight.

[Lilymax]

It doesn't surprise me at all.

 

I know that socialized medicine has been debated to death on this board, and I have no desire to go there again. But this is just one example of what happens in that type of system.

 

I have a British friend who recently lost a baby at 12 weeks gestation because her doctors refused to do a simple blood test to check her hormone levels when she began bleeding several weeks before. It was not "policy" to do so, even though American doctors do this for women like her all the time (she and I share the same infertility disorder--PCOS--that greatly increases the risk of miscarriage). I wouldn't have the children I have without early monitoring and an inexpensive prescription for progesterone that helped sustain my three pregnancies. (I had repeated miscarriages before they knew I had PCOS). My heart broke for her because chances are really good that her baby's death was preventable. She even took her doctor articles from the Internet explaining the connection; but they dismissed them, saying they didn't know anything about that, testing was against protocol, etc.

 

They also refused to do an ultrasound to see if the baby had a heartbeat once the bleeding became profuse at 12 weeks. She had to suffer through nearly a whole week of not knowing whether she was still pregnant or not. It was so inhumane what they put her through, all because giving her decent, modern, compassionate care went against what some government official decided pregnant women deserve.

 

Maybe 22-week fetuses don't have a huge chance of survival, but I don't know how doctors who won't even try to save such a child can sleep at night. It's heartless.

[d.g.]

This got me to thinking. In the US 20 weeks is considered a miscarriage (though I don't know if it is set in stone medically or just what my ob said to me years ago), so do the docs do anything to help a baby born before that or all are babies still born before that?

 

I think the cutoff for any sort of heroic effort lies around the 21+ week mark, and survival rates then are extremely low even in the best NICUs. Technology can only do so much.

 

ETA: I think that comfort care is/can be offered to babes born alive but too young to survive, or to babes born right around that gray area where they *might* survive but the parents choose to forgo heroic measures. That makes this case even more tragic...they couldn't even put the poor babe in a warmer to ease his short time here!!

Edited September 12, 2009 by d.g.

[katemary63]

Here we go! We're next and these are the kinds of decisions that will be made. Disgusting!

[Peela]

Extremely sad! This is what universal health care is all about, saving money is more important than a life.

 

Not at all. Most medical people in our public health system here in Australia would be horrified at this incident too. It's a horrible thing to have happened.

In fact, there are many people who have to go into the public system to get the best care, because the public system can afford to buy the latest equipment to keep them alive longer.

[Mommyof4ks]

I think the cutoff for any sort of heroic effort lies around the 21+ week mark, and survival rates then are extremely low even in the best NICUs. Technology can only do so much.

 

ETA: I think that comfort care is/can be offered to babes born alive but too young to survive, or to babes born right around that gray area where they *might* survive but the parents choose to forgo heroic measures. That makes this case even more tragic...they couldn't even put the poor babe in a warmer to ease his short time here!!

 

Thank you. I really should know this being that the NICU in our town has been highly ranked the last few years and I know a nurse who works there, but I just never thought to ask. I do know that even babies born a few weeks early don't always survive for whatever reason in the NICU, so it seems strange that the docs won't at least try with all babies.

 

It does seem that something should have been done for this poor little guy who was obviously a fighter. As you said at the very least, comfort. Babies should not have to suffer.

[Ibbygirl]

This is just heartbreaking!! I cannot even imagine the agony of that poor mother. :crying: :(

[Sue G in PA]

Not gonna debate but just want to say: THIS IS WHERE WE ARE HEADED PEOPLE! I had a friend (old high school teacher) die from a curable disease b/c of the LACK of treatment she received while living in England...all b/c of a health care system that is so "amazing" that our gov't decided they want to copy it! Nuff said. :glare: Sorry...didn't want to debate this but it really, really burns my you-know-what. Admin...delete if you find it inflammatory...I won't be hurt.

[Catherine]

This number is based on data from studies that look at survival in these infants, where they are routinely treated (or maybe, were treated).

[milovany]

Oh, I wish she could've read THIS story before she gave birth. Maybe, just maybe, she could've saved his life on her own like this gal did. So sad.

[HSinPeru]

Although it may seem shocking, many medical professionals would consider heroic measures given to a baby at just 22 weeks gestation to be inhumane. I am a nurse and my husband is a physician and 9 years ago I went into preterm labor with our daughter at 26 weeks. We decided ourselves that we were not comfortable with heroic measures given to prolong her life had she been born. That was our decision. I am thankful to say that she did not deliver early and was born at 38 weeks. Had she been born at 26 weeks we would not have consented to heroic measures. We would have asked for supportive care and had she responded well we may have consented to higher level care.

 

Although I can't support the uncaring actions of the staff in the article (that is assuming the story is accurate and I can tell you from experience that the story written in the newspaper is often inaccurage), it is not, IMHO, humane to give this 22wkold heroic measures. Medical professionals also have to consider the outcomes. What would life be like for that baby and that family if the baby did survive? Is prolonged life always the best life? I have friends who have very ill children and children who were born high risk and it has cost their families dearly.

Supportive care wasn't given and that's wrong on so many levels, but heroic measures? Is that always the best? Not that money should rule, but there isn't an unlimited amount of funding for health care. It may bea matter of cost. A baby born before 37 weeks costs the health care system on average of 1/2 a million dollars over their lifetime for care. A baby born before 32 weeks can cost over a million dollars. Part of the problem of our health system mqybe that we put survival as the top priority instead of supportive care in situations like this. There has to be a rationing of care at some point and where do we draw the line? It is tragic, but I can't say I would support heroic measures in this case. Valuing life doesn't always mean supporting heroic measures.

[Mabelen]

It doesn't surprise me at all.

 

I know that socialized medicine has been debated to death on this board, and I have no desire to go there again. But this is just one example of what happens in that type of system.

 

I have a British friend who recently lost a baby at 12 weeks gestation because her doctors refused to do a simple blood test to check her hormone levels when she began bleeding several weeks before. It was not "policy" to do so, even though American doctors do this for women like her all the time (she and I share the same infertility disorder--PCOS--that greatly increases the risk of miscarriage). I wouldn't have the children I have without early monitoring and an inexpensive prescription for progesterone that helped sustain my three pregnancies. (I had repeated miscarriages before they knew I had PCOS). My heart broke for her because chances are really good that her baby's death was preventable. She even took her doctor articles from the Internet explaining the connection; but they dismissed them, saying they didn't know anything about that, testing was against protocol, etc.

 

They also refused to do an ultrasound to see if the baby had a heartbeat once the bleeding became profuse at 12 weeks. She had to suffer through nearly a whole week of not knowing whether she was still pregnant or not. It was so inhumane what they put her through, all because giving her decent, modern, compassionate care went against what some government official decided pregnant women deserve.

 

Maybe 22-week fetuses don't have a huge chance of survival, but I don't know how doctors who won't even try to save such a child can sleep at night. It's heartless.

 

Not ALL universal health care systems are created equal. The care you receive in the UK is different from the care you would receive in my home country, Spain, for example. This is NOT across the board, just like different private health plans vary from each other here in the US.

[ELaurie]

here as well.

 

:(

[ThatCyndiGirl]

Well said, HSinPeru.

[Veritaserum]

I won't get into the universal health care debate part of this, but I will say that it's extremely tragic this happened, and will continue to happen to other mothers.

 

I can only think...I was sure of the conception of my now 3-month-old son only to within 3 or 4 days, since my cycles were strange when it happened. If the mother had been in the same situation, her babe could actually have been 22 weeks instead of 21w5d, especially since early ultrasound has a margin of error and he was bigger than normal for that gestation. I think I'm going to go hug my little guy a bit tighter tonight.

 

:iagree: How horribly sad.

[Mommyof4ks]

Oh, I wish she could've read THIS story before she gave birth. Maybe, just maybe, she could've saved his life on her own like this gal did. So sad.

 

Wow what a story. Further evidence that we need to take matters into our own hands and trust our instincts as mommies when no one else will help. Oh do I have rants on that lol.

[angela in ohio]

I can think of another possible reason besides universal healthcare to make sure there is a distinction between fetus up to a certain point and child after that, with the fetus having no rights.

 

The second article states it:

 

But Capewell reports that her wishes were ignored by hospital staff. "When I asked about my baby's human rights," she said, "the attitude of the doctors seemed to be that he did not have any. They said before 22 weeks he was just a fetus."

 

Under British criminal law, an unborn child can be killed by abortion up to 24 weeks gestation without any cause being stated and up to the time of full gestation if he is suspected of suffering from some disability.

[Melissa in Australia]

 

I know that socialized medicine has been debated to death on this board, and I have no desire to go there again. But this is just one example of what happens in that type of system.

 

They also refused to do an ultrasound to see if the baby had a heartbeat once the bleeding became profuse at 12 weeks. She had to suffer through nearly a whole week of not knowing whether she was still pregnant or not. It was so inhumane what they put her through, all because giving her decent, modern, compassionate care went against what some government official decided pregnant women deserve.

 

.

 

 

here in Australia, they give you ultra sounds no problem with any bleeding. I was 12 weeks and started spotting. I rushed to my doctor, 100 km away. it was a Sunday. he rang and called the ultrasound technician, who went to the hospital on her day of to do an ultrasound to see if the baby was fine. he was fine.

just because Brittan has a awful health system doesn't mean that every country with health coverage has awful health coverage.

what would happen in America to someone who had no insurance? we hear stories all the time of people in America that are turned away from hospital and get no treatment because they have no insurance.

[ThatCyndiGirl]

Keeping this barely-living fetus alive just so he could live a probably short and painful life is what sounds inhumane.

 

 

comfort measures should, of course, have been offered, but as for using heroic measures? no.

[joannqn]

I can only think...I was sure of the conception of my now 3-month-old son only to within 3 or 4 days, since my cycles were strange when it happened. If the mother had been in the same situation, her babe could actually have been 22 weeks instead of 21w5d, especially since early ultrasound has a margin of error and he was bigger than normal for that gestation. I think I'm going to go hug my little guy a bit tighter tonight.

 

:iagree:

 

He might have been 23 weeks, too, given his size.

 

I didn't know the date of Madelynn's conception either. I don't track intercourse or ovulation and my cycles were very messed up due to a 14 week miscarriage the month before. My LMP said she was due on the 11th. Based on implantation bleeding and date of positive pregnancy test I felt my due date should have been the 20th. First trimester ultrasound put my due date at the 15th. The midwife pretty much had to go with the 15th despite how I felt about it and my history of every birth being late. Madelynn was induced on the 24th and didn't have the characteristic look of a postdates baby. In fact, she's is rather hairy (arms, legs, back, ears) like an early baby can sometimes be. It just shows how off due date estimates are...they are just ESTIMATES, and in cases like this, that needs to be taken in consideration. There's no way for them to know that her baby wasn't actually quite a bit older than they thought.

 

I'm not necessarily agreeing that heroic measures should have been taken but, at the very least, comfort should have been provided. It is so sad that such a tiny human being has to die in discomfort.

[Vida Winter]

what would happen in America to someone who had no insurance? we hear stories all the time of people in America that are turned away from hospital and get no treatment because they have no insurance.

 

This would be illegal in America. Someone with a medical need cannot be turned away from an emergency room. The way the system is set up, many people show up at the ER with psych problems, seeking narcotic drugs, or minor problems that they don't want to see a family doc about (because they'd have to pay). Even all those people cannot be refused. They may not get what they want, but they will at least be seen by someone.

[Karenciavo]

This would be illegal in America. Someone with a medical need cannot be turned away from an emergency room. The way the system is set up, many people show up at the ER with psych problems, seeking narcotic drugs, or minor problems that they don't want to see a family doc about (because they'd have to pay). Even all those people cannot be refused. They may not get what they want, but they will at least be seen by someone.

 

I do seem to recall a hospital, I believe it was the University of Chicago Hospital, that shipped poor, mostly black patients with no insurance out to other emergency rooms aka patient dumping.

[EthiopianFood]

Although I can't support the uncaring actions of the staff in the article (that is assuming the story is accurate and I can tell you from experience that the story written in the newspaper is often inaccurage), it is not, IMHO, humane to give this 22wkold heroic measures. Medical professionals also have to consider the outcomes. What would life be like for that baby and that family if the baby did survive? Is prolonged life always the best life? I have friends who have very ill children and children who were born high risk and it has cost their families dearly.

 

It is not the medical community's job to decide whose life is worth living. Do your friends think their children would be better off if they had never been born? More importantly, do the CHILDREN feel their lives are not worth living? Where does it say in the job description of any medical professional that they have the training or the right to decide if someone's life is worth living?

[ThatCyndiGirl]

It is not the medical community's job to decide whose life is worth living. Do your friends think their children would be better off if they had never been born? More importantly, do the CHILDREN feel their lives are not worth living? Where does it say in the job description of any medical professional that they have the training or the right to decide if someone's life is worth living?

 

 

Actually, they DO. It is called Medical Ethics and there ARE people who work for health care systems who, in conjunction with other medical professionals, make these life-changing decisions.

 

Organ Transplantation comes to mind. Not everyone can be at the top of UNOS, kwim?

[Heather in Neverland]

I am a nurse and my husband is a physician and 9 years ago I went into preterm labor with our daughter at 26 weeks. We decided ourselves that we were not comfortable with heroic measures given to prolong her life had she been born. That was our decision. I am thankful to say that she did not deliver early and was born at 38 weeks. Had she been born at 26 weeks we would not have consented to heroic measures. .

 

All three of my nieces were born at only 27 weeks. They are now 4 years old, beautiful, smart and absolutely healthy. I don't know how you define "heroic" but every time I see them smile I am grateful for the "heroic" measures taken on their part.

[EthiopianFood]

Actually, they DO. It is called Medical Ethics and there ARE people who work for health care systems who, in conjunction with other medical professionals, make these life-changing decisions.

 

Organ Transplantation comes to mind. Not everyone can be at the top of UNOS, kwim?

 

Yes, because an organ can only be used by one person. Obviously they should pick the person who has the best chance to live as long as possible. You mentioned two separate issues: health care costs and quality of life. Would they really deny a less than ideal candidate on a transplant list if no one else can use the organ, and it will simply go to waste if they don't give it to that individual? If the money isn't available to help someone, then it just isn't available, I guess, but that is a completely different line of thought than deciding someone shouldn't receive help because of potential future disabilities. With this line of thought, we should also deny care to the elderly and people with developmental disabilities because we don't think their lives are of high enough quality.

[unsinkable]

Keeping this barely-living fetus alive just so he could live a probably short and painful life is what sounds inhumane.

 

 

comfort measures should, of course, have been offered, but as for using heroic measures? no.

 

How do you know this child's future?

[Orthodox6]

The article linked does not provide sufficient information for any reader to know whether or not the child would have struggled with permanent disabilities. (So I can't agree with this post on that basis, in addition to disagreeing with it axiomatically.) The doctor's reaction is described as that of an automaton. He did not even think; he merely parroted a rule about "before 22 weeks, before 22 weeks, before 22 . . ." The actual, factual condition of the baby is unknown from reading this article only.

 

 

Keeping this barely-living fetus alive just so he could live a probably short and painful life is what sounds inhumane.

 

 

comfort measures should, of course, have been offered, but as for using heroic measures? no.

[HSinPeru]

All three of my nieces were born at only 27 weeks. They are now 4 years old, beautiful, smart and absolutely healthy. I don't know how you define "heroic" but every time I see them smile I am grateful for the "heroic" measures taken on their part.

 

That's wonderful and in the british system they would have been treated. What are the standards here in the states? Would that baby have been treated with heroic measures here in the states? I'm curious. I wonder if this is less about universal health care and more about fear-mongering.

 

I'm a Christian, a pro-lifer, and a Canadian living in the states and I'm amazed at all of the rhetoric I hear concerning the universal health care system. It seems to me that the Christian right has taken it upon themselves to fight against it for moral reasons.

 

I know issues like "end of life care" and abortion have played into the fears of many, but honestly, having lived in both countries and having experienced both systems I have to say the Canadian system is much easier to live with. My husband worked in palliative care in Canada and the care received by patients was excellent. Many issues related to palliative (or end of life care) are difficult to understand from the outside. It is a specialized branch of medicine and when the media spins stories, the info gets misrepresented. At least from my experience in Canada, this is not something that should be raising so much fear.

 

How is providing equal, universal health care to all wrong? I like that the taxi driver's daughter gets the same care as my daughter (who's dad is a doctor). When I lived in Canada I did not fear getting sick. I did not worry about medical bills. When my husband and I were poor university students and had our children, we didn't worry about how were going to pay for it. All of my children were delivered for free. I didn't pay to see the doctor, pay for the delivery, pay for after care or anything. If I wanted an epidural, it was included. If I needed to see a lactation consultant, I could for free. I have been both rich and poor in Canada and my care was the same.

 

Now we live here in the states and are medical missionaries working for a tiny organization in central Florida. The money is tight and our insurance in very restrictive. Wow, what a difference! I dread having to go to the doctor. I don't go for blood tests to monitor health conditions because they cost too much. I regularly went to the doctor for care in Canada and never had to pay for labs or for the visit. My kids saw our doctor yearly (if not more). The care we received was excellent. Now I wait until we visit Canada to seek medical care.

 

There will be sad stories in all health systems. Canada's system isn't perfect, the American and British system has flaws, too. I hear so many people complain about the American system and yet they are afraid of universal care for moral reasons. Check your facts and make sure your concerns are based on facts, not media spin. It may not be the right system for the states, but at least reject it for reasons that are truthful.

[Word Nerd]

The mother herself didn't call for any heroic measures. She wanted her baby not to be treated as a stillborn since he was not. This baby was flatly refused any care or even to be put in an incubator.

Edited September 12, 2009 by WordGirl

[Peela]

This is tragic, but I don't see how this is the next logical step if healthcare would be reformed in this country. While I am unaware of any cases of this happening with a premature baby in this country, I do know of many cases where people were not given treatment that is available because of their inability to pay for it. Plenty of doctors will not even see a patient if they don't have insurance and don't bring cash up front. How is that a better system?

 

That's what I thought, too...that many are not treated because of inability to pay- in reality, whatever the actual ideal is about having to treat anyone. Isn't that part of the reson for the health care debate and proposed legislation? I am not well versed in it, but it seems that the objections I keep seeing here are based on fear of the unknown, based on extreme examples, rather than any common sense or experience of the systems in other countries.

No system is perfect and using extreme and isolated examples is not an honest way to debate. The Aussie system is far from perfect. But we sure wouldn't prefer the present U.S. system.

[Laura Corin]

Although it may seem shocking, many medical professionals would consider heroic measures given to a baby at just 22 weeks gestation to be inhumane. I am a nurse and my husband is a physician and 9 years ago I went into preterm labor with our daughter at 26 weeks. We decided ourselves that we were not comfortable with heroic measures given to prolong her life had she been born. That was our decision. I am thankful to say that she did not deliver early and was born at 38 weeks. Had she been born at 26 weeks we would not have consented to heroic measures. We would have asked for supportive care and had she responded well we may have consented to higher level care.

 

Although I can't support the uncaring actions of the staff in the article (that is assuming the story is accurate and I can tell you from experience that the story written in the newspaper is often inaccurage), it is not, IMHO, humane to give this 22wkold heroic measures. Medical professionals also have to consider the outcomes. What would life be like for that baby and that family if the baby did survive? Is prolonged life always the best life? I have friends who have very ill children and children who were born high risk and it has cost their families dearly.

Supportive care wasn't given and that's wrong on so many levels, but heroic measures? Is that always the best? Not that money should rule, but there isn't an unlimited amount of funding for health care. It may bea matter of cost. A baby born before 37 weeks costs the health care system on average of 1/2 a million dollars over their lifetime for care. A baby born before 32 weeks can cost over a million dollars. Part of the problem of our health system mqybe that we put survival as the top priority instead of supportive care in situations like this. There has to be a rationing of care at some point and where do we draw the line? It is tragic, but I can't say I would support heroic measures in this case. Valuing life doesn't always mean supporting heroic measures.

 

Laura

[Heather in Neverland]

That's wonderful and in the british system they would have been treated. What are the standards here in the states? Would that baby have been treated with heroic measures here in the states? I'm curious. I wonder if this is less about universal health care and more about fear-mongering.

 

I'm a Christian, a pro-lifer, and a Canadian living in the states and I'm amazed at all of the rhetoric I hear concerning the universal health care system. It seems to me that the Christian right has taken it upon themselves to fight against it for moral reasons.

 

I know issues like "end of life care" and abortion have played into the fears of many, but honestly, having lived in both countries and having experienced both systems I have to say the Canadian system is much easier to live with. My husband worked in palliative care in Canada and the care received by patients was excellent. Many issues related to palliative (or end of life care) are difficult to understand from the outside. It is a specialized branch of medicine and when the media spins stories, the info gets misrepresented. At least from my experience in Canada, this is not something that should be raising so much fear.

 

How is providing equal, universal health care to all wrong? I like that the taxi driver's daughter gets the same care as my daughter (who's dad is a doctor). When I lived in Canada I did not fear getting sick. I did not worry about medical bills. When my husband and I were poor university students and had our children, we didn't worry about how were going to pay for it. All of my children were delivered for free. I didn't pay to see the doctor, pay for the delivery, pay for after care or anything. If I wanted an epidural, it was included. If I needed to see a lactation consultant, I could for free. I have been both rich and poor in Canada and my care was the same.

 

Now we live here in the states and are medical missionaries working for a tiny organization in central Florida. The money is tight and our insurance in very restrictive. Wow, what a difference! I dread having to go to the doctor. I don't go for blood tests to monitor health conditions because they cost too much. I regularly went to the doctor for care in Canada and never had to pay for labs or for the visit. My kids saw our doctor yearly (if not more). The care we received was excellent. Now I wait until we visit Canada to seek medical care.

 

There will be sad stories in all health systems. Canada's system isn't perfect, the American and British system has flaws, too. I hear so many people complain about the American system and yet they are afraid of universal care for moral reasons. Check your facts and make sure your concerns are based on facts, not media spin. It may not be the right system for the states, but at least reject it for reasons that are truthful.

 

Well, to be honest, I am not sure where I stand on universal health care. All I know is to decide that a baby isn't worth trying to save at 26 weeks is heartbreaking to me. I am thankful that the doctors and nurses at the University of Michigan hospital saw fit to use heroic measure to save my three nieces.

[LynneMcCormick]

here in Australia, they give you ultra sounds no problem with any bleeding. I was 12 weeks and started spotting. I rushed to my doctor, 100 km away. it was a Sunday. he rang and called the ultrasound technician, who went to the hospital on her day of to do an ultrasound to see if the baby was fine. he was fine.

just because Brittan has a awful health system doesn't mean that every country with health coverage has awful health coverage.

what would happen in America to someone who had no insurance? we hear stories all the time of people in America that are turned away from hospital and get no treatment because they have no insurance.

 

If you have no health insurance in the US and you are pregnant you can get on presumptive medicaid. The insurance will cover the pregnancy and the hospital stay. Also, the baby and mother are covered for 30 days (with presumptive) and then they will probably go into regular Medicaid.

[muffinmom]

This would be illegal in America. Someone with a medical need cannot be turned away from an emergency room. The way the system is set up, many people show up at the ER with psych problems, seeking narcotic drugs, or minor problems that they don't want to see a family doc about (because they'd have to pay). Even all those people cannot be refused. They may not get what they want, but they will at least be seen by someone.

 

true. I went to the ER a few summers ago, and the doctors actually thanked me for having a true emergency...they were falling all over themselves to help me. They were frustrated that they had to treat all the nonemergency cases still sitting in the waiting room, taking up valuable ER doctors' time.

[HSinPeru]

Well, to be honest, I am not sure where I stand on universal health care. All I know is to decide that a baby isn't worth trying to save at 26 weeks is heartbreaking to me. I am thankful that the doctors and nurses at the University of Michigan hospital saw fit to use heroic measure to save my three nieces.

 

For us, it wasn't a matter of worth, it was about what was kind and loving to our daughter. Our daughter was worth everything to us. 9 years ago, the outlook for a 26weeker was bleak. We didn't want heroic measures done unless she was strong enough. I have worked in the health care system and have many friends with chronically ill children and have seen the on-going cost of extreme heroic measures (and I don't mean just financial). In answer to a post a while back- Yes, I do have friends who tearfully admit that they don't know if it was the best thing for their child to have survived. Had our daughter responded well to supportive care, we would have asked for a higher level of care. In year 2000, with our experience and background, we felt it was best to tread carefully and not to assume that heroic measures was the best option. As Christians, we trusted God to guide and provide wisdom. We were thankful that my labor was stopped and our daughter was born at 38 weeks, but we also would have been thankful to God no matter the outcome.

 

We trust that He is ultimately in control and the giver and taker of life. As medical professionals, we consider Him to be the Great Physician and try to make the best decisions possible based on the guidelines in His word and the situation at hand. We never want to rule out that He can override anything we do. I have seen miracles first hand and consider our daughter's outcome to be one of them.

 

What happened with the 22week old is tragic and the lack of supportive care was wrong, but I can't say I disagree with the lack of heroic measures. It's just sad when tragic situations are used to influence a debate on health care when the outcome in this situation likely had nothing to do with universal health care.

[Brilliant]

...The Aussie system is far from perfect. But we sure wouldn't prefer the present U.S. system.

 

Likewise, the US system is far from perfect. But I, and the vast majority of Americans, wouldn't prefer the present Aussie system.

 

Most Americans have health insurance...and most are satisfied with it, according to reliable polls by Rasmussen & others.

[muffinmom]

My nephew was born at 25.5 weeks gestation. He had to be in NICU for 3 months. He is 18 now, has CP. His life has brought joy to SO many people. More joy than my life has brought to anyone.

 

We think somehow that if a person will be physically or mentally damaged in some way that they won't have the quality of life that we would imagine they should have. But it is usually those very people that find a path to joy that the rest of us never find...but, boy, do we get a glimpse of it when we spend time with such people.

 

 

The measure of the value of a life is not ours to make.

[Orthodox6]

Have insurance? Yes.

 

Satisfied? Not in my wildest hallucinations.

 

"Reliable poll" -- generally an oxymoronic term

 

Likewise, the US system is far from perfect. But I, and the vast majority of Americans, wouldn't prefer the present Aussie system.

 

Most Americans have health insurance...and most are satisfied with it, according to reliable polls by Rasmussen & others.

[Wendi]

I think what bothers so many of us is that even basic comfort care (an incubator, etc.) was refused. And that the mother was given NO choice at all. It's not as though the doctor put the baby in an incubator, then sat down with the mother and explained the situation, helping her make the best decision. Perhaps the mother would have agreed with the doctors about heroic measures, but couldn't she have asked for some basic level of care and comfort until the baby died naturally? And shouldn't the decision have been hers?

 

I also have experienced the way due dates can be "off", and someone can conceive later in the month than assumed. Since I was a bit high-risk in the beginning, having had previous miscarriages, I had a number of ultrasounds early in the pregnancy, and a few later. My due date was changed based on an early ultrasound (around 10 wks?) and moved back a week. That due date ended up being pretty accurate; I delivered 3 days after it. Thinking of the woman in the article, what if her due date was a week off, too, and never changed because she didn't have extra ultrasounds?

 

Wendi

[Stacy in NJ]

I think what bothers so many of us is that even basic comfort care (an incubator, etc.) was refused. And that the mother was given NO choice at all. It's not as though the doctor put the baby in an incubator, then sat down with the mother and explained the situation, helping her make the best decision. Perhaps the mother would have agreed with the doctors about heroic measures, but couldn't she have asked for some basic level of care and comfort until the baby died naturally? And shouldn't the decision have been hers?

 

I also have experienced the way due dates can be "off", and someone can conceive later in the month than assumed. Since I was a bit high-risk in the beginning, having had previous miscarriages, I had a number of ultrasounds early in the pregnancy, and a few later. My due date was changed based on an early ultrasound (around 10 wks?) and moved back a week. That due date ended up being pretty accurate; I delivered 3 days after it. Thinking of the woman in the article, what if her due date was a week off, too, and never changed because she didn't have extra ultrasounds?

 

Wendi

 

:iagree:

[astrid]

EXACTLY.

We HAVE health insurance. Blue Cross, Blue Shield, in fact. We NEVER use it. Dd goes for checkups, etc, but I cannot remember the last time dh or I went to the doctor. Health insurance is a farce for most. We keep paying out of dh's paycheck, but when we have to use medical facilities, there's a huge copay we are responsible for, and when all is said and done, a staggering portion of the bill is not covered by the insurance for which we pay through the nose. The result is that preventative care is not happening, and when we do finally break down and seek medical care, it's catastrophic and prohibitively expensive.

 

Satisfied? Not even remotely close.

 

astrid

[swellmomma]

I am not surprised at all. I have had 3 preemies and while each one did make it close to term it was touch and go from the beginning. With my ds now 6 labour started at 15 weeks. They told me if he was born before that 22 week cut off they would simply provide paliative care and not even attempt to save him AND they would not try to stop the labour beyond basic measures because it would be considered a miscarriage not a live birth. In the end he was born at 36 weeks after lots of bed rest, so it became a non-issue, but for weeks I agonized over the knowledge that if he came right then they would leave him to die. I agonized for weeks knowing they would do nothing to stop me from delivering either, but would take steps to do so just weeks later. I was never told that with my other prems but it was evident in the difference between how the dr's responded to me before 22 weeks and after 22 weeks when I was in labour(3 of the 4 preterm labour started before 22 weeks)

[elizabeth]

Although it may seem shocking, many medical professionals would consider heroic measures given to a baby at just 22 weeks gestation to be inhumane. I am a nurse and my husband is a physician and 9 years ago I went into preterm labor with our daughter at 26 weeks. We decided ourselves that we were not comfortable with heroic measures given to prolong her life had she been born. That was our decision. I am thankful to say that she did not deliver early and was born at 38 weeks. Had she been born at 26 weeks we would not have consented to heroic measures. We would have asked for supportive care and had she responded well we may have consented to higher level care.

 

Although I can't support the uncaring actions of the staff in the article (that is assuming the story is accurate and I can tell you from experience that the story written in the newspaper is often inaccurage), it is not, IMHO, humane to give this 22wkold heroic measures. Medical professionals also have to consider the outcomes. What would life be like for that baby and that family if the baby did survive? Is prolonged life always the best life? I have friends who have very ill children and children who were born high risk and it has cost their families dearly.

Supportive care wasn't given and that's wrong on so many levels, but heroic measures? Is that always the best? Not that money should rule, but there isn't an unlimited amount of funding for health care. It may bea matter of cost. A baby born before 37 weeks costs the health care system on average of 1/2 a million dollars over their lifetime for care. A baby born before 32 weeks can cost over a million dollars. Part of the problem of our health system mqybe that we put survival as the top priority instead of supportive care in situations like this. There has to be a rationing of care at some point and where do we draw the line? It is tragic, but I can't say I would support heroic measures in this case. Valuing life doesn't always mean supporting heroic measures.

 

Well stated by putting aside the obvious emotional impact of the story to look at scientific facts.