4
   

Brit healthcare kills baby for being born 2 days too early

 
 
Reply Wed 9 Sep, 2009 07:47 am

http://www.evilconservativeonline.com/2009/09/doctors-told-me-it-was-against-rules-to.html

 
DrewDad
 
  2  
Reply Wed 9 Sep, 2009 07:59 am
@gungasnake,
Quote:
who was born prematurely and died solely because he was denied treatment by the NHS in Britain.

Conjecture.

Quote:
The guidance, drawn up by the Nuffield Council, is not compulsory


Got any more BS to shovel?

Quote:
Medical experts say babies born before 23 weeks are simply too under-developed to survive, and that to use aggressive treatment methods would only prolong their suffering, or inflict pain.


Why do you hate babies, Gunga?
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  5  
Reply Wed 9 Sep, 2009 08:08 am
@gungasnake,
Actually, the baby was born 18 weeks and 2 days too early.
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Sep, 2009 08:22 am
@FreeDuck,
FreeDuck wrote:
Actually, the baby was born 18 weeks and 2 days too early.

Thanks for the clarification, FD.

Do you agree with the concept of denying health care to a baby born 18 weeks and 2 days too early?
FreeDuck
 
  6  
Reply Wed 9 Sep, 2009 08:42 am
@Ticomaya,
I'm not a doctor and I wasn't there, but generally if the baby has a very slim chance of survival, and if the health care in question would only prolong the child's suffering, yes. From gunga's link:
Quote:
Experts on medical ethics advised doctors not to resuscitate babies born before 23 weeks in the womb, stating that it was not in the child's 'best interests'.
The guidelines said: 'If gestational age is certain and less than 23+0 (i.e at 22 weeks) it would be considered in the best interests of the baby, and standard practice, for resuscitation not to be carried out.'
Medical intervention would be given for a child born between 22 and 23 weeks only if the parents requested it and only after discussion about likely outcomes.

...
But while survival rates for those born after 24 weeks in the womb have risen significantly, the rates for those born earlier have barely changed, despite advances in medicine and technology.
Medical experts say babies born before 23 weeks are simply too under-developed to survive, and that to use aggressive treatment methods would only prolong their suffering, or inflict pain.
The guidelines were drawn up by the Nuffield Council on Bioethics after a two-year inquiry which took evidence from doctors, nurses and religious leaders.
...

Studies show that only 1 per cent of babies born before 23 weeks survive, and many suffer serious disabilities.


Further, the example they cite to demonstrate that the baby would have been given care in the US contradicts that claim:
Quote:
Amillia Taylor was born in Florida on October 24, 2006, after just 21 weeks and six days in the womb. She celebrated her second birthday last year.
Doctors believed she was a week older and so gave her intensive care, but later admitted she would not have received treatment if they had known her true age.


Further, if the child had been born in the US to a 23 year old mother who already had a 5 year old child, meaning it is unlikely she had the means to pay for the care and would likely have been using Medicaid to pay for the treatment, I'm sure some people would be singing a different tune.

Every woman cooks babies differently, so I think there should be some wiggle room around these gestational deadlines, but the doctors there could have made a different call if it looked like the baby's chances were good. They didn't.
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Sep, 2009 09:04 am
@FreeDuck,
I was going to chip in my two cents, but I see you've covered everything that I would have said.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 9 Sep, 2009 09:05 am
The problem is, that this is the model for the health care system which Americans are going to have if we simply follow the democrat scheme of fiddle ******* around with the way our present system gets paid for rather than actually trying to fix the problem.

Actually fixing the problem would involve trust busting, the most major piece of such being tort reform. So far, the only American pol I've seen any evidence of having figured this out and said anything about it is Sarah Palin.
FreeDuck
 
  6  
Reply Wed 9 Sep, 2009 09:13 am
@gungasnake,
gungasnake wrote:

The problem is, that this is the model for the health care system which Americans are going to have if we simply follow the democrat scheme of fiddle ******* around with the way our present system gets paid for rather than actually trying to fix the problem.

No, it isn't. The Brits have a universal single payer system, they build and run the hospitals, they hire and pay the doctors. That's not being proposed by any bill currently in either house of congress.

Quote:
Actually fixing the problem would involve trust busting, the most major piece of such being tort reform. So far, the only American pol I've seen any evidence of having figured this out and said anything about it is Sarah Palin.

Tort reform? You bring the case of a child born severely premature who would likely have needed long term care, a case which likely would have resulted in a law suit in this country in order to recover costs for a lifetime of care had the child been treated, and you want to suggest that tort reform would be helpful? I guess it doesn't have to make sense.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Sep, 2009 09:22 am
@FreeDuck,
Quote:
I guess it doesn't have to make sense.


It's easier to understand them if you keep that in mind.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Sep, 2009 09:34 am
@gungasnake,
It is stuff like this that makes me suspect gungasnake of being the greatest Internet satirist, ever.
0 Replies
 
boomerang
 
  2  
Reply Wed 9 Sep, 2009 10:12 am
What a sad story. I hate to see this stuff politicized.

Just for some perspective - here's a photo of Amillia Taylor's feet at the time of her birth:

http://access.nscpcdn.com/gallery/i/w/wnew_amillia_taylor/amilla1.jpg

Her neonatal medical bill ran over $1,000,000 and was covered by insurance.

I'll wager that if not for such good insurance that this child would not have received medical attention either.


High Seas
 
  2  
Reply Wed 9 Sep, 2009 10:17 am
@boomerang,
boomerang wrote:

What a sad story. I hate to see this stuff politicized.....Just for some perspective - here's a photo of Amillia Taylor's feet at the time of her birth:
http://access.nscpcdn.com/gallery/i/w/wnew_amillia_taylor/amilla1.jpg
Her neonatal medical bill ran over $1,000,000 and was covered by insurance.........I'll wager that if not for such good insurance that this child would not have received medical attention either.

That's all true, and it gets worse: that baby has irreversible brain damage, and low-functioning lungs and intestinal tract. The medical care bills will keep mounting throughout its life. I wonder if Gunga has thought through his thesis that this is a case to emulate or even to make mandatory.
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Sep, 2009 10:21 am
@High Seas,
High Seas wrote:

That's all true, and it gets worse: that baby has irreversible brain damage, and low-functioning lungs and intestinal tract. The medical care bills will keep mounting throughout its life. I wonder if Gunga has thought through his thesis that this is a case to emulate or even to make mandatory.

Yep. I was looking for any information on what her current development looks like. As best I could tell, she is beginning to walk and say words now, at the age of 2. Even preemies who make it to 8 months have long term issues.
High Seas
 
  3  
Reply Wed 9 Sep, 2009 10:23 am
@FreeDuck,
Free Duck - this was a baby conceived by IVF and they have even more problems than other premature babies, generally.
0 Replies
 
BorisKitten
 
  2  
Reply Wed 9 Sep, 2009 04:06 pm
@gungasnake,
Quote:
Actually, the baby was born 18 weeks and 2 days too early.

Do you actually fail to see the difference between a baby born 2 days early VS one born 18 weeks Plus Two Days Early? Oh, just like "Evil Conservative Radio" does?

Please.

This is not even worthy of our consideration.
0 Replies
 
Merry Andrew
 
  2  
Reply Wed 9 Sep, 2009 06:44 pm
I don't know why you folks are even bothering to treat Gunga Dim's lame post with any degree of seriousness. This is so typical of the right wingnuts. He posts some garbled garbage about the UK health care system and his intent has nothing whatever to do with health care in the UK. He means it to be taken as a dire warning of what could happen in the USA if we adopt President Obama's recommendations for health care reform. Never mind that none of the Obama proposals are clones of the UK, Canadian, Australian or any other existing health care system. Never mind that the article he links is full of holes to begin with. His intent is clear and it has nothing to do with health care in the UK or anywhere else.

So why do we bother humoring him and responding to his idiotic posts? Why, in fact, am I doing so right now? I don't know. Onset of dementia, I suppose.
joefromchicago
 
  5  
Reply Wed 9 Sep, 2009 06:55 pm
@Merry Andrew,
It is refreshing to see a conservative express some concern for a newborn baby for once. They usually lose all interest as soon it stops being a fetus .
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Sep, 2009 06:59 pm
@joefromchicago,
+1!
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 9 Sep, 2009 08:53 pm
@joefromchicago,
Meanwhile, we are all used to seeing leftists anxious to kill babies.
Merry Andrew
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Sep, 2009 08:57 pm
@Ticomaya,
Ticomaya wrote:

Meanwhile, we are all used to seeing leftists anxious to kill babies.


Ahh, it would be soooo nice if I could assume you're just being your sarcastic self. But with you, Tico, one can never be sure.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Is surrogacy the answer for infertility - Question by womenhealth
Pain of Childbirth. - Discussion by ebrown p
Shackling women prisoners during childbirth labor - Discussion by BumbleBeeBoogie
Childbirth at 65 - Discussion by Phoenix32890
Demographics: Women and Childbirth - Discussion by littlek
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Brit healthcare kills baby for being born 2 days too early
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/24/2020 at 05:05:34