Premature Babies....

[smudge]

What do you think of the News, that very premature babies take up valuable caring time & space within hospitals?: Here

[zara 4]

Ridiculous,i wouldn't think anyone would choose to have a premature baby,but a prem is entitled to the same care and 'space' as anyone else.These children are the countrys future and should be given the respect that they deserve,as much care as is neccesary!!!

[Lonnie]

It might not be, but I keep wondering if this is a 'Red Herring', to divert our attention from something else.

[smudge]

I agree zara - if there is a chance of survival at birth, they should be given the right to be nurtured & live a happy life.

My friend's niece was born weighing just over 1lb! She is now a very healthy, happy little 7 year old.

My own great niece was born weighing just under 2lbs. We all took it in turns to tube feed her with syringes of milk & she is now a very healthy & happy 10 year old.

[smudge]

Sorry, could you elaborate on that please Lonnie.

[zara 4]

If blair and his cronies were faced with a premature baby of THEIRS,I challenge them to say don't help it cos it takes up too much time,no,just other peoples children then???

[Lonnie]

Certainly smudge, but I have to go out now, i'll give my reasons later this evening on this post.

[smudge]

Okey, dokey, Lonnie - look forward to your comments.

P.S. Don't forget your brolly!

[hal]

zara (and others), this is nothing to do with politicians. Its come from the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (who are completely independent and amongst the first to critisise politicians over funding issues) and is about 'professional concern around the high death and disabiltiy rayes of babies born under 25 weeks.' Its a legitimate debate to raise - please don't turn it into an anti - Blair rant.

[smudge]

hal - you say "zara & other's", but I haven't once mentioned Blair (even though I can't stand the little cretin).

I have my own thoughts on the reasons why, but a premature baby is a human being & the ethics of nursing is (or was) to save lives.

Having said that & as hypocritical as it may seem, I believe in Euthanasia - for people with terminal illnesses - abiding by their wishes in 'Lliving Wills' etc., but that's another story.......

[hal]

Smudge - I didn't mean all others, sorry should have been clearer. I think it is important that people have a say in this kind of debate. I wouldn't dream of critisising anyone for having a point if view on this issue. I welcome your post for providing the opportunity to debate/discuss. I just don't want to see it politicised by some others.

[morg_monster]

I think it is important to have a public debate on this as well. The sad fact is that these very early babies do use time and resources which mean that less premature babies, or full term babies requiring other special care, have to be transported perhaps hundreds of miles to be cared for, possibly putting them at risk. A lot of people have been saying things like 'this baby i know was premature and is fine now' - and that is brilliant - and the crux of the problem - how can the doctors know which baby will do well and which won't. For each very premature baby who ends up a healthy child, there are probably ten or twenty with mild to severe problems. Some of these babies will remain virtually institutionalised with their problems throughout their life, never having a reasonable quality of life. This can take a huge toll on parents, carers and siblings, financially and emotionally. I have seen this in the families of kids in a special needs school, where some of the pupils' problems were caused by prematurity.

I'm not convinced that it is always in a very prem, sick baby's interest to be aggressively treated / resuscitated. Some parents decide to take this course, some decide to make reasonable attempts but then let their little one have some peace away from machines before passing away. I don't know what I'd do if this was me.

To be honest I doubt anything will really come of this - they won't put a lower limit on which babies will be treated - but it is very important that the public and parents are aware of these issues and that they can weigh up the pros and cons, and make decisions based on what is best for their baby, rather than what is best for them. Unfortunately this is in practice very difficult to do.

[smudge]

That's okay hal - I now understand what you meant - no hard feelings! ;o}

I do understand what you mean too morg. This is such a delicate subject & I'm only going on the two successful cases that I know of.

I do know of one child of 15, who was born prematurely & who has Cerebral Palsy - his parents just couldn't begin to imagine life without him, however hard it's been for them over the years.

As you say, no doubt there are many more like him, but when you're looking at a tiny baby fighting for life in an incubator, watching its every move in case it stops breathing - how awful for parents, Doctors & nursing staff, to have to make a decision like turning off a machine to end its life......

[Lonnie]

Hi smudge, First, let me say that this proposal is one of the most disgusting medical proposals ever, its even been likened to what the Spartans used to do, and it makes you wonder if the proposers have children of their own, also, I believe that allowing babies of twenty five weeks and under to die, is actually practiced in Holland.

Now, please note, that I said I was wondering if it was a 'Red Herring', this story is Huge, its got the general public so outraged that they are ringing up radio stations and with some, actually blocking the lines, there are so many, I can't remember another news item, apart from 'nine eleven, and seven seven to create such a reaction.

I know this came from the medical side, but ever since it broke, the phrase, 'its a good day to bury bad news', is stuck in my head, I just can't get rid of it, its repeating itself over and over again, and even though at present, I can't think of anything bad enough to warrent my suggestion, i'd be surprised if something else of equal magnitude, (political), hasn't happened, but we just don't know it yet.

Thats all supposition at present, but it wouldn't surprise me if the 'let babies die', was a political suggestion, fronted by a medical 'fall guy'.

Well those are my thought on the matter.

Ps. I got soaked.

[searchme]

For 'premature babies' substitute:- geriatrics,cancer patients,patients with serious heart disease,heavy smokers/drinkers,seriously injured participants in dangerous sports etc etc..... and , maybe -you!

It's bad enough that we're prepared to murder our unborn children in the womb,but to deny them care after birth is just pure evil.

[smudge]

Thank you for getting back with your very interesting reply Lonnie. Yes, I do remember that comment "It's a good day to bury bad news" & you have a valid point there.

I can also see what you mean too searchme - when you think of how some people have abused their own bodies by smoking, drinking & over-eating, then expecting Medical teams to step in & 'make them better' again, does make you think.

Prem babies can't speak for themselves & should be given a chance of life.

[zara 4]

I stand by everything i said hal,say what you like but there is ALWAYS a politician behind all this type of thing,i AM NOT going on a political rant as you say,this is all just so predictable nowadays!!!

[brachiopod]

"This type of thing" ????

So if someone from the medical profession states an opinion / makes a suggestion with a more positive spin or a more philanthropic stance , then, equally, you would subscribe to there being "a politician behind it"?

[zara 4]

Basically,,,,,yeah!!!

[noxlumos]

The thing I have a slight problem with here is that people are bandying around the idea that these premature babies will possibly be handicapped THEREFORE their lives are not as valuable as a "normal" baby. I think that's very dodgy ground.Hitler had similar ideas about the handicapped and we can put whatever caring and positive spin on it we like but it all amounts to the same thing. I have a very good friend who was premature and is quadroplegic as a result. He has a great life. He is severely disabled by anyone's reckoning but he has always been that way and one day when we were discussing a similar topic to this he said that people pity him for not being able to walk or move from the neck down and seem not to understand that since he has never known anything but that situaiton, it's of no consequence to him. It's like him pitying me because I cannot fly unaided, it's not relevant to me. What he does have a problem with is being viewed as "less" or "inferior" or "not as important" because of his disability which seems to be exactly what is being proposed if we fail to treat prematures because they "might" be "disabled".

I think it's a blow to all disabled people's rights to be considered and I think it's a very serious downward trend of our society that we are even considering this.

[sandbach99]

The Doctors seem to be oblivious of the mothers' and sometimes the fathers' overwhelming love for their babies, in some cases this premature baby is the only baby the mother has been able to conceive or carry to a live birth, no mother has deliberately had their baby this early. In most cases the parent will want the baby to survive no matter what problems lie ahead. I think the Doctors are trying to make decisions as to who lives and who dies too often and relatives are not expected to question the Doctors decision.

Premature babies and the elderly are bed blockers and therefore should not be in hospital, smokers, the overweight and drinkers should not be admitted as their illness is their fault, presumably this also applies to drug users and people with eating disorders, people injured doing dangerous sports should not be treated, patients not to be admitted the day before an operation, this leaves only a few people to be treated therefore close many wards or hospitals, massive savings for the state and most people end up with massive private treatment bills.