Queens has some really Catholic neighborhoods. I mean exceptionally Catholic. Even the praying mantises dont just pray. They say novenas. -Steve Allen

Featured Posts


Creative Minority Reader

Will We March with the Death Cult?

Baby Jayden was born with a strong heartbeat. He moved his arms and legs. But none of that mattered. You see, government regulations state that doctors don't care for babies born before 23 weeks. And Baby Jayden was two days short of 22 weeks. So he was left untreated. To die. Baby Jayden's mother said she cried to one doctor, "You have got to help." And the doctor said, "No we don't." He was following the rules. They told the mother just to enjoy the time she had with her baby son.

So for two hours doctors and nurses ignored the baby's strong heartbeat and the mother's cries for help until baby Jayden died.

Is this what you want, all you fans of ObamaCare? Is it?

Daily Mail reports:

Doctors left a premature baby to die because he was born two days too early, his devastated mother claimed yesterday.

Sarah Capewell begged them to save her tiny son, who was born just 21 weeks and five days into her pregnancy - almost four months early.

They ignored her pleas and allegedly told her they were following national guidelines that babies born before 22 weeks should not be given medical treatment.

According to the mother, she was told that doctors would have tried to save the baby if he had been born two days later.

James Paget Hospital in Norfolk said it was not responsible for setting the guidelines relating to premature births. A hospital spokesman said: "Like other acute hospitals, we follow national guidance from the British Association of Perinatal Medicine regarding premature births."

National guidance? Sound an awful lot like the ol' "we were just following orders" defense.

The guidelines state: "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."

Guidelines? Standard practice? Never mind that a baby in Florida was born recently at 21 weeks and six days and is doing fine.

But you've got to love the guidelines saying what's in the "best interests" of the baby? Come on. It's in the best interests of the baby not to give the baby a fighting chance? Pardon me but I get a little tired of hearing the government decide what's in the "best interests" of people.

Pro-choice punks are all about allowing the mother to decide if the baby's allowed to live or die until the mother actually decides she wants the baby to live. Then and only then does the government jump in and say sorry, now we actually care about what's in the best interest of the baby. Then the mother doesn't get to choose. And guess what? The government decides it's in the best interests of the baby to die.

This strange death fetish has infected the morals of Western civilization and is destroying it from the inside. This perverted form of mercy that "allows" someone to die as their mother screams for help is a tyrannical sickness that is hollowing us out.

This is where we are folks. Western civilization has progressed itself into a death cult that is on the brink of disappearing forever.

And tonight we're about to hear a big speech from our President why we should continue marching along in lockstep with the death cult. This is what's at stake. Make no mistake about it.

HT Pewsitter

Your Ad Here

61 comments:

Anonymous said...

oh my gosh that is completely horrible. I have one question though, how did the baby in florida get care at 21 weeks and six days but the other didn't at two days from 22 weeks?

matthew archbold said...

This story occured in England.

Subvet said...

Sounds like they were channeling Pontius Pilate.

Rick said...

A situation like this needs to be seen not in a vacuum but in the context of triage i.e. "the process of sorting people based on their need for immediate medical treatment as compared to their chance of benefiting from such care."

If there is unlimited care, then why not cure everyone? But when limited medical resources must be allocated to maximize the number of survivors, then seemingly cruel decisions have to be made. But one must look at the others who lived because of that decision.

The current paradigm is based on who can afford to live. So the rich live and the poor die. The proposed model is based on who the doctors think should live. So, the Democrats will survive and the Republicans will be left to die.

Since I am an independent, I'll probably die no matter who is in power.

MPetryjr said...

Shouldn't we provide a reasonable attempt at resuscitation? Don't we have a moral obligation to that? This is not a combat situation where if you survive you put the rest of the men at risk. And you know what, yes we should try to save everyone. The sick and dying deserve to be comforted as they pass this life to the next with the Lord.

Craig said...

It says in the Daily Mail article that if the doctors had known the true age of the girl in Florida, she would not have been treated either.
She was only treated because the doctors thought she was 22 weeks and six days.
So there goes your "this will happen only with Obamacare" accusation.
It's happening right here and now in good ol' US of A.

Anonymous said...

At first I thought it was hypothetical, a what-if story. It sounded too brutal to be true, too ... I have no words. Surely this couldn't have happened. But it did. I have no words and will shut up now.

matthew archbold said...

Craig,
The good ol' USA has been marching in lockstep for years in the death cult.
ObamaCare will only be progressing further down that path.

Katie said...

Don't worry, I'm sure the feminist pro-"choice" groups in England will be screaming for justice for the mother any minute now.

Just wait for it.

...
...
...
*crickets*

Anonymous said...

Seems there once was a senator from illinois who supported placing aborted babies born alive and placing them on a shelf in a nice quite closet until they were no longer alive. Apparently that was his idea of how to avoid a girl being punished with a baby. Here the only difference is that a baby born alive is allowed to die because his life would have been an expensive inconvenience to society. Given the amoral nature of socialism, why would anyone be surprised at such a decision. It would be a surprise if the doctor had acted to help the child live.

Craig said...

Anon,

Given the amoral nature of capitalism, this same decision and countless other similarly egregious ones are already being made here every single day to fatten the bottom line of private health insurance companies.
These practices don't take place because of the culture of death, Mr. Archbold. They take place because of the culture of money.

Matthew Siekierski said...

I'm not sure how I would have reacted if doctors had refused to treat my micro-preemie, but I'd probably still be on probation, at the very least.

The lack of care all around is disgusting. Can't administer medicine to stop the contractions? My wife has had those shots multiple times.

And how is death by slow suffocation somehow "in the best interest" of the baby, while attempts to intubate and keep the baby alive would be "too painful"? How can doctors not treat an obvious patient?

I also want to note that the wording of the guideline is questionable, to me. Resuscitation, in my mind, involves reviving someone who is dead. This baby was breathing. Weakly, but breathing. His heart was beating. He had brain function. There would have been no resuscitation involved, merely intensive care.

Gail F 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."

You don't resuscitate people who are not dead. This baby wasn't dead. What does that guideline have to do with anything?

Anonymous said...

Who names a boy "Jayden"? Oh, wait...got it.

Enjoy the Brits while they're around. They are eugenically wiping their population off the planet. As goes the Anglican church, so goes the British.

Sarah said...

Again, you've given me another reason to cry today. I'm at 18 weeks right now. What if my baby were born in another month? Would my child have a chance? Sigh.

Just a note, but the Culture of Death began with the Culture of Convenience. When things are inconvenient they are avoided- hence birth control. (Pregnancy is anything but convenient somedays. I'm bound to discover feeding a newborn every 2 hours will prove awfully inconvenient to my sleep schedule.:) Once birth control became norm, it was only a matter of time before we had abortion on demand- to remove the inconvenient results of the failure of the original convenience.

Once abortion is norm, it's just one short slide until we take away even the personal "choice" of the mother as to which "inconveniences" we want to live. After all, we women mustn't be selfish! We must think of the inconvenience to others that child (whoops! I meant inconvenient unintended consequence of misusing a convenience) would mean for those trying to keep it alive.

From there it's another short move to China's one-child policy with all the lovely forced abortion that it entails.

It's like a hellborn version of "If you give a mouse a cookie..."!

By the way, reading Dante's Inferno right now and wondering where Margaret Sanger is now located...

Dirtdartwife said...

This is one reason why I hate doctors that demand that I accept, without question, their "accurate" gestational age of my child. Three of my five pregnancies... their dates have been off by MORE than 10 days.

So what if this child, was in fact, older than 22 weeks? (Yes, I'm well aware if could have been two weeks younger too, but that's not the point).

People tell me docs are so knowledgeable so when I hear "oh the rhythm method doesn't work" when I tell them we use NFP... but they are HARDCORE all about using their "Every woman has a 28 day cycle therefore according to my spin dial, you are XX weeks along."

This story just angers me to my core.

Foxfier, formerly Sailorette said...

Craig-
I'm afraid you're incorrect, the only reference I can find for not treating Miss Amillia Taylor say she wouldn't have been given intensive care, in a Telegraph article; looking around a bit more, I think I found the origin of that notion:
She was delivered because her mother was suffering from complications. Fassbach said that if doctors had known Amillia's real gestational age, they might not have intervened. He said he thought she was at least 23 weeks, and doctors were shocked when the Taylors' fertility specialist pinpointed the exact date of fertilization.

Heather said...

Dirtdartwife--I lied to my doc, told her what she wanted to hear. Well, the nurse asked, but that was the info Doc got.
"Last menstrual period?"
Mental calculation: ovulation on Jan. 11, 2004--typically Day 14; that would make Day 1...
"December 28, 2003."
Never mind that my last actual period had been June 2, 2002. And I was still nursing the baby conceived the next month. :)

Jen Raiche said...

I agree with the above commenter - the Culture of Death started with the Culture of Convenience.

I still can't believe that those doctors/nurses just sat there, waiting for that poor baby die. Absolutely disgusting.

Sarah said...

Dirtdartwife, I know just how you feel! When I told my original obgyn about my use of NFP, she told me, "Oh, NFP, the Rythm Method? HAHA! How about I prescribe you some pre-natal vitamins now!!"

That was the last time I saw that doctor...

There's a website out there that has a guid to good, pro-life NFP obgyns out there. Google Pro-Life NFP OBGYN and you should find it. The doctor I'm with now is excellent and has many NFP patients and has a good understanding and RESPECT for those who use NFP.

It frustrates me when medical professionals refuse to educate themselves on the newly developing NaPro technologies out there.

eulogos said...

In this country usually a weight cut off is used instead of or inconjunction with the gestational age criteria.
Gestational age is almost never "certain." About the only time it would be is if the woman had only had intercourse once, or if she was charting fertility symptoms carefully and a fertility specialist interpreted her charts.

I'd say lie to the doctor, except if you lie at the beginning to make the baby seem older, then they will expect you to go into labor sooner and they will be pushing induction.

The weight criteria used was 500gms. There was an episode of "ER" in which the woman didn't want attempts to help the baby because she was a special education teacher and was aware of the severe deficits babies born that early can have, but the hospital did it anyway because the baby was 501 g.

I certainly understand the feelings of the woman begging for help for her baby, and I would find it hard to be working in the hospital and seeing that.
But at least you all ought to understand what the life course of such a preemie often is. They get brain hemorrhages. (IVH). Their intestines can't handle even special premie formula, and they get such a bad colities that their intestines literally rot.(Necrotizing enterocolitis, NEC).
Their lungs become scarred, such that if they live they have a sever form of asthma. (bronchopulmonary dysplasia).
Their breathing has to be assisted, and you can't think being intubated is comfortable. They have a tube down their nose for feeding. They have multiple IV lines, which have to be restarted. They have multiple blood draws every day. It isn't uncommon for them to need surgeries. And sometimes after a month or two months of this, they die.
When they live, almost all have cognitive limitations, some have hearing and vision loss, some have cerebral palsy.
The average cost of care for a premie is $400,000, But for premies as young as 22-25 weeks, the cost is usually close to a million dollars.

So, should there be a cut off at all, before which we do not treat? Should a baby born at 19 weeks, who may indeed gasp for air and emit a weak cry, be treated?
At 20 weeks? I believe there are rare 20 week babies who have survived. If half of one percent will survive with treatment, should all babies born at this gestational age be treated?

Consider that not all, but most prematurity is preventable, and a million dollars would fund a lot of prenatal care and a lot of WIC food. Because it is prenatal care and intervention with women with unhealthy life styles, nutritional counseling and the provision of healthy food which can greatly reduce the incidence of prematurity.

So if you think all preemies should be treated, at least you should know the cost, financial, in terms of what else could be done with the money, and in terms of pain and suffering for the baby. If the baby has only a 1% chance of living, do you want him to die on a vent, stuck full of tubes, or in his mother's arms? 5%?

Let's not make this subject simpler than it is..

Foxfier, formerly Sailorette said...

Let's not make this subject simpler than it is.

Sure, because the most logical thing to do is to lay all infants that may be expensive out on the hillside to be eaten by dogs, so that the remaining population will be healthier and much better cared for.

Very reasonable.
We should absolutely do no treatment of helpless little babies, because the only possible other option besides leaving a tiny child there without even basic health care is to spend millions on them, and that wouldn't be *fair*.

Anonymous said...

so what now eulogos? we should let living people die just because saving their life would be expensive? yes god would really appreciate people letting premature babies die even if the have a small chance of living

Anonymous said...

Eulogos - I understand what you are saying. Death is a hard reality, under any circumstance. But it is extremely difficult when applied to newborns. The subject is extremely complex, and as you say, many more criteria should be used than just the gestation date. The doctor in question was hardly laying this infant "out on the hillside to be eaten by dogs" which was a rude, insensitive and just plain uneducated comment. Without being there, we should give the doctor the benefit of the doubt in that he may have known just by looking at the infant that no matter what was done it would not survive. It sounded like he was trying to console this woman by saying, "enjoy the baby while he is in your arms and make him as comfortable as possible while he is here."

100 years ago, this would of course have been a non-issue, and the doctor would not have been questioned. Of course with the huge advances in science and medicine, we now have many more options and questions on issues like this. But the bottom line is medicine can only help us so much. God trumps all. Had the baby been meant to live, it would have lived. We do our best, and God does the rest.

Craig said...

Foxfier,

You can play semantic games, but the doctors in Florida are obviously using the same guidelines as those established in England. The articles you cite do not contradict that. Amilla obviously needed intensive treatment to survive and was a miraculously lucky little girl, plain and simple.

Foxfier, formerly Sailorette said...

Anon-
Might want to work on your reading comprehension before you start throwing around "rude" and "ignorant," let alone "uneducated."

They didn't refrain from any sort of heroic treatment-- they simply left him to die without any treatment at all.

For an analogy, this would be like the ambulance coming to a car wreck and refusing to touch the victims because policy says that someone who seems to have their low level of chance to survive should not be treated.

Failure to render aid is an ugly, ugly thing.

Foxfier, formerly Sailorette said...

Craig-
No, they weren't.

They induced because they thought the little girl was two weeks older than she was-- if they'd known she wasn't 23 weeks along, they would have held that risk to her health from birth as higher than that from complications.

THAT is what the quoted doctor said-- in contrast to what the UK interpretation implied.

Craig said...

Foxfier,

In the article that tells the whole story from the mother's point of view. She tells about how she lied to keep them from ending the pregnancy.

The definitive quote:

"Would you save my baby if it was born now?" He looked at the notes, and replied: "You are 23 weeks and six days, so yes."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1021034/The-tiniest-survivor-How-miracle-baby-born-weeks-legal-abortion-limit-clung-life-odds.html

Oh, and they didn't induce, it was a c-section.

Anonymous said...

My reading comprehension is just fine. I stand by my statement. When you get a medical degree, you can talk about rendering aid. Until then you don't know what you are talking about. When someone is dying, in ANY situation, the impulse is "do something!" But sometimes there is just nothing you can do except try and make the patient as comfortable as possible. Many doctors prefer to be up front rather than be a "buddy" and pretend or go through the motions, even though they know the enevitable will happen.

Rather than passing judgement for which you are entirely unqualified, you should save your energy and just pray to God you are not found in that situation.

Foxfier, formerly Sailorette said...

Anon-
Watch the assumptions; you never know who you are talking to on the internet.

By the way, you don't have to have a medical degree to be required to render aid in those areas with such laws-- having a "reasonable expectation" of being able to do something, anything, is generally enough.

You'd think you'd know that, if you've had so much as the standard Red Cross video CPR class and paid attention. They mention it multiple times, and I know it was on the sheet the Navy had me sign when I took those classes.

But sometimes there is just nothing you can do except try and make the patient as comfortable as possible.

Which they did not do with the child here; even by your anonymous expert opinion, they failed in the "least" measures.

Craig -
even your new story says "revive."
Baby in this story wasn't out of it. (So sorry I guessed the wrong procedure for HOW they willfully pulled the kid out of the womb early.)
Additionally, I can find zero support for the claim that Florida will not treat premature infants before the 24th week, just lots of copies of the article you link.

Much support of 24 weeks as viability and when Fl hospitals are required by law to resuscitate premies, though. (Probably due to a 'born alive infant protection act' of some form.)

Anonymous said...

You weren't there, nor was I. I know you do not have a medical degree by the sheer tone and idiocy of your post. I said from the begining we should give the doctor the benefit of the doubt, unless you somehow have video footage of what actually happened (I know you think you are omniscient with all the answers, but that doesn't count in a rational ccnversation). Are you always such a bitch?

Foxfier, formerly Sailorette said...

If considering leaving a child to die without even the barest of treatment makes me a bitch, then bitch I am-- and proud of it.

William said...

Ugh. Awful "points" Craig and Anon, you're lucky Foxfier's even willing to hash this out with you.

It's not "induced" it's "C-Section"... cause C-Section is a natural birth?

And even giving you the ridiculous internet point that we don't have instant reply footage of the birth, can you deny that it's horrible to pass a decision of life and death based strictly on an arbitrary amount of days and not the DOCTOR IN THE ROOM'S OWN OPINION.

Ah, I'll take, "The whole freaking point" for a thousand, Trebek.

Craig said...

Foxfier and William,

You can pretend that my point about the last post was the c-section comment, but I only mentioned that at the end as an aside.
As far as being lucky to have Foxfier engage me on this issue, its more that the reverse is true.
The fact remains, Foxfier, that if the mother had not lied about the age of little Amillia and had she not been hell-bent on hiding what was going on with her pregnancy until she knew doctors would invest the effort to keep Amillia alive, Amillia's story would have taken quite a different path.

It's also quite telling how you studiously ignore the fact that she is an IVF baby. Without the "culture of death" IVF clinic and the numerous fertilized embryos that were used to make Sonja's pregnancy possible, we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

Scott W. said...

Wow. Another Choice-Devours-Itself story.

William said...

Man, I'll give you your point, because it's entirely outside mine.

So the mother in the UK should have lied as well to buck the system?

Or the woman and Florida didn't end up with a baby for the sake of her deceit? Unless that baby ends up destroying Tokyo, I don't think we're the worse for it.

Let me sum. To save her baby's life, a woman may have to lie to her doctor, but she shouldn't have to lie to her bureaucracy.

Foxfier, formerly Sailorette said...

Craig, are you smoking something? I'm not "studiously ignoring" that the Florida girl was born by IVF. I didn't bring it up because it's not relevant to either the post or your claims.

Frankly, one of the side objections I have to IVF, beyond that it results in treating tiny kids like things and that it's connected with much higher risks for all sorts of problems, is that there are sometimes really good reason you can't get pregnant, especially if you've got a long history of miscarriages.

Sarah said...

Foxfier, IVF opens a whole other can of worms.

What kills me about IVF is that those who seek it might be convinced to do it as an easy way out of the infertility thing. In other words, people might be misled by their doctors into thinking that the only way they can get and stay pregnant is through IVF. Doing investigational homework (like charting using the Creighton method) to see if there are hormonal deficiencies or doing ultrasounds to see if there are physical barriers to the egg meeting sperm might solve many of these cases and result in happy moms and dads without the IVF intervention. So instead of doing investigation into the WHY of how come a woman can't conceive and bear children, the doctors just override her system and do IVF. It's a cheap way out, but all too common as many otherwise knowledgeable OBGYN's out there are completely ignorant of the advances in NFP.

My apologies for the cynicism here, but my experiences in going from birth-control to NFP and having to change OBGYN practices because of the derision I experienced at the hands of my previous (and otherwise competent) doctor have left me a little jaded about the level of education that OBGYN doctors have in the USA now a days.

And it's no small wonder too- NFP is cheap, easy and natural, so noone really makes money off it. So, if you're a pharmaceutical company trying to sell the latest fad in female sterilization and unnecessary medical intervention, you're going to finance schools that promote your products... and produce OBGYN's with little to no knowledge of NFP.

If I'm not connecting the dots correctly here, someone please call me out on it!

Foxfier, formerly Sailorette said...

Sarah-
Sounds accurate to me. My folks use AI to breed the smaller cows, and I've *seen* the difference between someone looking at a chart of what "should" be happening, and my folks using their shared knowledge. IVF is also popular to support because the "leftover" embryos are so helpful in the dehumanization of tiny humans.

Only argument I'd give you is that it's not over-riding her system, it's utterly bypassing it-- forced ovulation and AI would be closer to over-riding.
(Incidentally also the outer limit of what I find acceptable, although it's such a touchy subject it's hard to speak of anywhere.)

I definitely don't want to hurt anyone who has used IVF-- I'm (thank God) not facing difficulties getting pregnant myself, but for a very long time both my sister and I thought we _would._
Especially for folks who value family, I know how that feels-- I also see what the structural bias against adoption has done to family friends who can't have kids, can't afford/won't do IVF, but would be great parents.

Mouse said...

Ooops. I'm late to the party. My excuse is chicken pox.

I'm also a little sleep-deprived, so I'm not going to be real coherent.

Anyway, just so you know, Craig and Anonymous, Foxfier is pregnant. I get the feeling both of you are guys, so I'm going to let you in on something. When a woman is pregnant, especially if it's a pregnancy she's excited about, her "mother bear" instinct is very, very strong. The "bite your head off if you look at a helpless baby" kind of strong. This instinct cannot be reasoned around and no action which contradicts this instinct could make sense. Lots of things become very, very black and white. It's sort of like this: when you see Spider-man capture a bank robber, terroize him by dangling him from a lamp post, and then turn him over to the cops, you're supposed to cheer. You're not supposed to ask: why is he stealing? Does he have a family? Why does he need the money this badly? Does dangling him upside-down constitute cruel and unusual punishment? Would the cops treat him fairly? Was he framed? Why doesn't Spider-Man ever get a real job, anyway?

Why can I say this about Fox-fier's probable state of mind? 'Cause I've got two kids and am incubating # 3.

So, the black and white story is this: in the UK, a baby died, based on, among other things, probably inaccurate numbers and a doctor apparently did nothing. It might have happened here in Florida, if the mother had not lied to the doctor. These stories are horrifying and no amount of number-crunching can alter the horror of a mother looking at that story and thinking "that could have been my baby".

So, please stop insulting Foxfier. Some instincts will brook no rationalization.

While a million dollars could sure go to a lot of preemie care and WIC, can anyone tell me how many abortions that could also fund? I mean, if we're going to play with numbers, I would gladly have my taxes going to try to save the life of an infant as opposed to going to fund Planned Parenthood.

And, incidentally, those are really big words for someone hiding cravenly hiding behind "Anonymous". You certainly don't have the kind of credibility that should give you license to make judgements about another person's character. Grow up.

Craig said...

Whoa, Mouse, don't lump me in with Anon!
I am not insulting Foxfier in the least, I am meerly defending my postion. I wish her nothing but the best with her pregnancy and you with yours.
I have 3 beautiful girls at home myself. The second one was born at 24 weeks and weighed only 16 ounces so I am somewhat familiar with the preemie ordeal. Thankfully, my wife didn't have to go through what both of these mothers experienced before she was born. She just shot out on the floor of the ER as the nurses were telling my wife that she probably was having false labor due to kidney stones.

Foxfier, formerly Sailorette said...

In Craigs defense, though at very opposite ends, I'm pretty sure he'd know foxes are vixens and not bitches. ;^p

Thank you greatly for the defense, though, Mouse-- and best wishes with your babies!

She just shot out on the floor of the ER as the nurses were telling my wife that she probably was having false labor due to kidney stones.

Oh, that is epic visuals. I'm presuming, since you're able to mention it casually, that the kid is alright?

Mouse said...

Craig,

I didn't mean to lump you anon. Sorry it came out that way. My fuzzy reading of the conversation was that you were disagreeing with FF and I was trying to explain why you'll have to agree to disagree with her. My very negative comments were meant for the cowardly anon poster, not you. :-)

And, having read the entire conversation in one go, (with Thomas the Tank engine playing in the background and the air conditioner broken), was that you were defending the actions of the doctor in this case. I re-read your comments and found that this is not the case. Apologies.

I am going to have to say, though, that I think Money and Death often go hand-in-hand in any culture. I'm thinking that the docs may have been willing to do more to save those lives if legally it wasn't already open-season on them.

Mouse said...

Hey, Foxfier!

No problem! We mama bears should stick together, right? ;-)

Best with your little one, btw. Do you know boy or girl?

Craig said...

Oh, yes!
Thanks for asking, Foxfier!
She was born still encased in the placenta so she was starved of oxygen for a short while which resulted in a case of mild cerebral palsy but she's 12 now and doing very well.
And I agree that vixen is a much more appropriate term. ;-)

Again, good luck!

eulogos said...

I put my name to everything I write, and I very very very seldom insult anyone.

And I think the basic impulse of everyone here who feels strongly that the preemie should be treated is a normal and good one.

However I want to address what someone said, ridiculing that there was no mean between a million dollars of premie care and doing nothing.

I don't think there is such a mean.
What intermediate measures would you want to have taken? A heated incubator and blow by oxygen? The baby will still die, and his mother won't be holding him.

The fact is that once committment is made to treat a preemie there are elaborate protocals and care pathways to be followed, and anything less is substandard care. Hospitals can't deliberately provide substandard care. It is either the decision that the baby is too premature to survive or the committment to half a million to a million dollar's worth of care.

I have heard that sometimes doctors do make a decision that a certain preemie newborn "looks like a fighter" and that they will even fudge numbers to justify treatment. I have also read that sometimes socioeconomic factors have a place in these decisions; do these parents, does this mother, appear to be able to provide the kind of services this child will likely require if he survives? I think we can all see some dire pitfalls possible with the second kind of flexibility in making this decision.

It sounds wonderful to say we should treat every preemie who shows some signs of life, but some are born so early that their skin and veins are too delicate to handle IV's and their lungs unable to handle the slightest ventilator pressure. There is still a threshold of possible viability.
Decisions not to treat, not to attempt to rescue, have to be made. Perhaps this decision was not right, perhaps the baby was more mature than the numbers, perhaps the doctor had grown callous. But it makes no sense to say that there is no decision to be made.

Susan Peterson

eulogos said...

Craig,

Congratulations on your girls and on the wonderful outcome for your 24 week preemie. I converted her weight to grams, and if it was exactly 1 pound, it comes out to less than 500 grams and thus less than the weight limit some hospitals use. I rejoice that your child was treated and lived.

I just think we should discuss these situations with some concrete knowledge of what is involved. Certainly no one will take us seriously if we show we don't have a clue what we are talking about regarding preemies of very low gestational age.

(And at that age every week counts, so that there is a huge difference between 21 or 22 weeks and 24 weeks in the outcomes.)

Susan Peterson

Mouse said...

Susan,

When I said "Anonymous" I meant the Anonymous poster who called Foxfier a bitch. Not you.

And I explained where I was coming from. Perhaps I can't think as rationally as you on this point, but if it were my baby, I would want all possible care to be exerted, if for no other reason than to keep the baby alive long enough to let the rest of the family say goodbye and get some closure. Also, that mother will live for the rest of her life wondering "What would have happened if my baby had been treated?"

Sure it's complicated. But we'll have to agree to disagree.

Matthew Siekierski said...

eulogos, the doctor's responsibility is to try, to the best of his ability, to save the life of the patient. Difficulties later in life don't justify withholding treatment. Is death somehow better than life that has difficulties?

My 640g preemie has overcome all sorts of problems. Yes, she has BPD, had 3 surgeries before age 1, came home on oxygen, etc. And, yes, her stay at the hospital came to near $1,000,000, once you add in all of the separate doctor's bills (the hospital room/staff was about 2/3 million).

My daughter has a small stature, wears AFOs, needed hearing aids (since resolved), has low muscle tone, nystagmus, continuing eye exams for ROP, and various other issues. All of this, and more, is bearable.

The desire for an easy life leads to an aversion to life's natural difficulties. Is life hard when a person has additional physical or mental problems? Sure. Does that make life not worth living? Not at all. It's certainly not the doctor's job to make that decision...his job is to treat the patient, not ignore the patient because treatment may cause someone to have difficulties later in life.

William said...

Okay, okay. Let's look at this again.

Craig, you say that the doctors in Florida are roughly following the same protocol as the doctors in England. One is insurance, the other bureacuracy. I disagree, but that's not what I'm interested in here.

Do you think Obamacare would alleviate the situation? Or some other reform? Or do you believe that while it sucks, it's the best we can do?

And this ain't no "A-HA!" trap, I'm just curious. 'Specially since Obama is in utopia land, and it's hard to get any true perspective from him.

Foxfier, formerly Sailorette said...

Mouse-
No, don't know kiddo's sex, although I use "he" generically; we keep telling folks that the last time someone in my family tried to find out girl-or-boy before birth, they were told it was twin boys...then my grandmother had my mom.
;^p


eulogos -
it is I who mock the only options being leaving a child to die without raising a hand, and bringing down the full force of heroic efforts.

For comparison, both of my grandfathers died after rejecting heroic treatment measures; Mrs. Schiavo died because basic comforts, food and water, were denied her. There's a huge, huge gulf in morality between the two.

Craig said...

William,

If the guidelines need to change because of advances in medical science, I believe Obamacare (your term, not mine) would not stand in the way of that.

Mouse said...

Hey, Foxfier,

We never found out with ours, either. The suprise is nice, plus I get to work on two sets of names before hand. ;-)

Hey, Craig,

I just have a quick question. I'm trying to follow the debate on healthcare and some it starts to sound like two kids screaming "Am not!" and "Are too!". So, I'm trying to get someone who sounds thoughtful and mature to give me a sound perspective on what William was asking about. I'm assuming William meant "socialized medicine" when he said "Obamacare". Please correct me if I'm wrong. One argument that I've heard leveled against socialized medicine is that the process, when regulated by the government, and thereby eliminating all sense of competition or lack of incentive to advance in one's field (if all the profits are the same, why try, right?), it would inhibit any progress in medical science, thereby putting at a disadvantage those who would benefit most from those advancements (preemies, cancer patients, the elderly, etc.). Please do not attempt to diagram that last sentence. ;-) At any rate, this is what I've heard argued, and I haven't heard a rebuttal on this. Can you help me out?

William said...

Yeah, you're correct Mouse, that's what I meant and was curious about.

Craig said...

Mouse,

That's a very big question and I'm swamped today. I'll gladly try to answer your questions, but it probably won't get done today. I'll most likely post some answers here for you tomorrow (Saturday).

Have a great day!

eulogos said...

Foxfier, you haven't said what measures you think should be taken which fall between letting the child die while being held and comforted by its parents, and the full protocal of premie care. You haven't addressed the issue that once care has started, giving anything less than standard of care treatment is malpractice. I suggested some intermediate measures such as the care given to much older premies who can breathe on their own...blow by oxygen and a heated incubator, pointed out that the child will die anyway with only that care and that wouldn't it be better for the child to die in its mother's arms? I suppose one might give a bit of oxygen while the mother holds the child, but the purpose of this would be to make the mother feel that something was being done. And I repeat that doing this would probably make the hospital liable to a lawsuit, unless they worked it up as a "palliative care protocal" for newborns too small to survive..and then they would have to show that it was, indeed, palliative.
Matthew,
I don't think difficulties later in life justify not treating. But when the chance of survival is minimal (before 23 weeks), misiscule (before 22 weeks) or none (any earlier than that), the burdensomeness of the treatment can be considered.
Susan Peterson

Foxfier, formerly Sailorette said...

eulogos-
and you have not stated why it is all the forced of heaven and earth or nothing.

Frankly, giving a newborn less care than would be offered an orphaned kitten would seem to require much more explanation.

By the fact that this story is making news, it would seem many agree with me.

Foxfier, formerly Sailorette said...

BTW-

But when the chance of survival is minimal (before 23 weeks), misiscule (before 22 weeks) or none (any earlier than that)
you *do* realize the earliest preme was 21 weeks, right?

"Impossible" is a rather extensive word.

Craig said...

Mouse,

Here is a wonderful op-ed I highly recommend you read:

http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/socialized-medicine-not-quite/blog-138149/

Here's a quote from there that offers a rebuttal:

"Any American who's had a hip or knee replacement is standing on French innovation. Deep-brain stimulation to treat depression is a Canadian breakthrough. Many of the wonder drugs promoted endlessly on American television, including Viagra, come from British, Swiss or Japanese labs."

Here's another link you may find interesting:

http://www.pnhp.org/facts/singlepayer_faq.php#research

Here's the section regarding what you're asking about:

"Much current medical research is publicly financed through the National Institutes of Health. Under a universal health care system this would continue. For example, a great deal of basic drug research, for example, is funded by the government. Drug companies are invited in for the later stages of “product development,” the formulation and marketing of new drugs. AZT for HIV patients is one example. The early, expensive research was conducted with government money. After the drug was found to be effective, marketing rights went to the drug company.

Medical research does not disappear under universal health care system. Many famous discoveries have been made in countries with national health care systems. Laparoscopic gallbladder removal was pioneered in Canada. The CT scan was invented in England. The treatment for juvenile diabetes by transplanting pancreatic cells was developed in Canada."

Hope this helps!

Craig said...

Mouse,

As an aside, I also want to tell you how great it is having you around on this site!

I never, in a million years, thought it would be possible to have a pleasant exchange with Foxfier!

Had your "mama bear" instincts not kicked in, that would never have happened.

Anonymous said...

my son was born at 21 weeks and 6 days in alabama after 6 days of bed rest.i beeged for the steroids to help inflate his lungs and for the stop contractio shoet but they refused bc my son Jordan was less that 24 weeks and they said he would never take a breath and would not be "viable" When he was born he lived 1.5 days on room temperature air and stunned all the doctors. he eventaully passed but i know he would ahve lived if they would ahve just tried and agve him the meds i asked for..Doctors dont care about "fetus's" under 24 weeks.period bc they think they are God and know what is best

Post a Comment