If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
babies left to die before 25 weeks??
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
not sure if this has been done, i couldnt see it but reading this in the newspaper has made me mad, how can they say a baby should be left to die if it has a chance of living a perfectly normal life with some special care when they are born because they are apparently 'bed blockers' and are taking up beds that could be used by children who have a better chance of survival, i mean wtf!!
imagine having a baby born that premature and doctors not being allowed to do anything. its a disgrace that some people actually think that this is in any way right, wouldnt be that if it was their child. i know someone who was born at 24 weeks and she has turned out perfectly healthy, yet some idiots are saying she should have been left to die along with the other kazillion people who have been born this early and turned out healthy.
i think everyone deserves to have a chance at life, no matter what age.
thanks for letting me rant, i was totally disgusted.
imagine having a baby born that premature and doctors not being allowed to do anything. its a disgrace that some people actually think that this is in any way right, wouldnt be that if it was their child. i know someone who was born at 24 weeks and she has turned out perfectly healthy, yet some idiots are saying she should have been left to die along with the other kazillion people who have been born this early and turned out healthy.
i think everyone deserves to have a chance at life, no matter what age.
thanks for letting me rant, i was totally disgusted.
0
Comments
I don't agree with the suggestions from the RCOG but the point they make is true - the babies do spend a long time on the SCBUs and it does cost a lot. The thing is, most people are willing to spend NHS money on them, so that's that.
i know of many kids who started out as prems and who are now in their fighting fit teens and doing very well thankyou.
pensioners cost to much money ...these kids cost to much money ...the mentaly handicapped cost to much money.
the way our thinking is being shaped ...there will be no caring in the world before long ...cos it takes time and costs money.
well said imo.
we can dream up all manner of amazing machines and medicines ...we never ever seem to beable to dream up an economic system that actualy works.
of course it should be spent on these people.
Why should it be? Surely the people who are already living there should be a priority - food, healthcare, etc?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4875196.stm
relevance being?
Well, the relevance being that leaving a baby to die would not be a painless exercise and needless cruelty ... ?
If you had the choice to have an operation with a 50% chance of death but the chance of another five years of life, or to continue with a life of medical problems (maybe a cancer) and death in a few years, which would you choose?
WE HAVE THE SKILLS AND THE KNOWLEDGE ALONG WITH THE TECHNOLOGY TO SAVE THESE oops caps ...we live in one of the richest corners of the planet yet still people begrudge the funding.
which realy makes the knowledge etc a bit pointless.
this country can fund wars of agression ...consider rebuilding the nuclear power industry at a cost of unimaginable billions ...lets have new trident missiles at another countless amount of billions but ...never ...never dream of spending much on the people themselves.
thats what it always boils down to ...money.
On the other hand, if the baby really isnt doing well, then I think there should be a cut off point, where medical intervention should be stopped, such as with baby Charlotte. Its the same with older people. There comes a point where nothing much more can be done and its crueler to keep them alive. Theres no way they should be left to die just because they were born before what we think of as viability, because that lowers all the time.
what is the point in having it all if we can't use it?
However, I wouldn't want my child to suffer and if it was born at 25 weeks, the reality is that its chances of surviving and staying healthy are poor. I've already said that I don't agree with the RCOG on this, but if you won't even acknowledge the cost of treating very premature babies, how can we justify a publicly funded health service?
And rolly, I think you overestimate what technology can actually do without the expensive infrastructure and manpower that goes with it.
it annoys me that even in such a wealthy country ...the money can't be found for the people but ...it can for nuclear subs missiles wars as per usual.
this country is fabulously wealthy ...but spending it on the people is always a problem.
On what basis do we ration? Age/Condition/Chance of survival - remember even 1% would suggest that 1 in 100 would benefit...
'we cannot provide everything' ...is this because ...despite all our clever inventions ...our technology ...we never seem to be clever enough or willing enough ...to create an economic system that can keep up with all our other ideas and achievements?
Partly yes, partly it's the media and politicians raising expectations. There is also an element on doctors not being honest, or rather completely honest, with their patients. This could be about how lon the wait is for surgery, to the prognosis - something which some cancer specialists have a problem with.
I have experience of patients ringing their GP for an appointment and then complaining that they will have to wait a couple of hours - or refusing to have the GP ring them back because his appointments are already full for the day...
Some people have unrealistic expecation of what is possible. Some think that they will walk well the day after major knee surgery for example - then get upset when the consultant tell them the reality. Some think physiotherapy will cure their condition rather than just help them cope with it etc etc etc
Some of each really.
Even if the technology exists, do we have the money?