Coming soon to a hospital near you?


A premie baby was born in Britain recently.

It was only 21 weeks old, obviously very early. The mother was hysterical and overjoyed, the nurse commented on him moving his arms and legs. He had a strong heartbeat.


The rule over there is that baby has to be at least 22 weeks before medical intervention is administered. This mother missed it by mere days.


The head nurse told the mother "The doctors won't save him sweetie, make the most of your time". She was left, the baby still alive mind you, with a pamphlet on funerals.



I'm curious...would these same people help a drowning kitten, a dying homeless man, a baby fur seal or a whale?


















http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12...care-limit.html

Terrible story but I was surprised with this line:




Seems her child was one day ealier than the 'youngest premi baby to survive'.

So she wasn't presenting a clear cut case of "his baby would have survived if the doctors tried."


Even Obama was able to see that not all babies survive which is why he was able to vote mutliple times to allow a baby to die on the counter instead of trying to save it in the case of a botched abortion.




This though is why America will not do well with socialized medicine. We've lived for too long with the idea that:

A. Given enough money, anything is possible
B. If a doctor makes any mistakes..you've hit the lottery
C. We deserve to get treated quickly, once we've waited 3 hours in the waiting room, or 7 hours in emergancy.

Gut-wrenching story. My only really big objection was that apparently doctors in a universal system can't be flexible when they want to be. However, the following is important:

"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.
But weeks before they were published in 2006, a child was born in the U.S. which proved a baby could survive at earlier than 22 weeks if it was given medical treatment.
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."

So, it seems that given the same facts, the US doctors wouldn't have gone for it either, and that there was absolutely no assurance that the child wouldn't have likely been a vegetable.

I agree with point A. here, but it's a double-edged sword. This same sense of entitlement is the case everywhere in the world, in America it's just that everyone thinks this way, not just the nobility.

The idea that money can purchase this unlimited possibility is just a more egalitarian version of the idea that your position of birth should purchase unlimited possibility, which is the case in many places like the UK where private hospitals offer more expanded services to the gentry, while everyone else gets more rationed care.

Great things have been accomplished in this country because everyone believes that they have the same rights as everyone else. Obama wouldn't be president if he hadn't thought that he could aspire beyond his birth. (your decision about whether this is a "great thing" or not, but you have to admit that it was unlikely)

It just sucks that this also applies to spending millions of dollars to keep people with terminal illnesses alive for 3 months longer, while living in the worst kind of pain.

It's hard for the government to mandate not doing everything possible for everyone, in a country where everyone believes they're entitled to the best. With a private system that drops people who can't afford expensive care, it just means that the government isn't forced to make this difficult decision (and live with the political consequences).

This is so obnoxious, I don't know where to start. First, in the US, they try no matter what. Certainly there's not much hope at a younger age, but they try.

Second, these preemies don't become vegetables. Two of my kids were micro-preemies, and both are perfectly fine. What tends to happen is they die within the first few days or they survive with a higher chance of asthma.

Don't tell me my kids aren't worth it, I will be forced to track you down and KEEL you.

And that is the problem with socialized medicine -- you have to ration or the federal budget goes broke. Each individual is not given a choice, the doctor is not given a choice. Life or death decisions are made on a one-size-fits-all basis. If you tell me that this country would be better off without my middle child, then you are an arrogant prick who doesn't deserve to live.

I think you took my post a bit too personally since you have a personal stake in preemie care.

It's not true that they try no matter what in the US...did you completely miss that quote? And were your preemie children the world-record earliest-born survivors that the doctors just didn't tell anyone about?

I wasn't making blanket statements at all...I was highlighting quotes and facts pertaining to preemies born prior to 22 weeks. Regardless of motivation, in this case, it seems the end result would've been the same inside or outside socialized medicine.

Terrible story.

I have no idea if the baby would have survived if given care, but it's still quite sad.

However:





According to your article, this is a lie. The 22 weeks thing isn't a rule, it's a guideline. It's just advice. It's not like treating the baby would have been against the law.

And there are plenty of horror stories from the US that are a direct result of our for-profit medical system. But that doesn't make this story any less sad.