mashowasho

It was in the news recently that babies born at 22 (or less) weeks of gestation have about 1% survival rate and that they should not be given treatment to help them stay alive. (Source: BBC NEWS | Health | 'Do not revive' earliest babies)

Bear in mind that the cut-off point, as far as I recall, used to be at 24 weeks.

What do you think about this? Agree? Disagree?


PERSONALLY, I agree with this. Now that hospital equipment is getting better all the time, babies given care have a better chance of surviving. There has to be a limit though, surely? Is it really fair to use equipment on a baby that is likely to die anyway; would this not merely be prolonging its distress? Plus, it prevents other children that have a better chance of survival from being saved. Children born so prematurely, even if they do survive, are highly likely to be physically or mentally disabled. And before you all lay into me, I was born prematurely, so don't say I don't know what I'm talking about!

Discuss!

__________________

We can only learn so much and live.

Hodge

Leave it up to the parents. I think 24 weeks is too low, too. Raise it to like 28 weeks. Yeesh. We make such a big fuss over babies and fetuses that haven't even developed into individual persons yet, and then we pass off wars and the murders of developed individuals as if it were a normal part of life.

sanctuary

If you say we shouldn't treat them because they have a very, very low chance of survival, does that mean we shouldn't treat the very aged people who need treatment and have a very low chance of survival too?

__________________

Hodge

The difference between the two is that the elderly are individuals who have lived their lives. They have personalities, memories, unique traits. Newborn babies, and especially premature babies, do not.

__________________
Science

sanctuary

But then you could argue that we are wasting money on people who have already lived their lives, and probably wont get to live it much longer, even if they do survive.

__________________

Hodge

And that's a completely separate argument that has nothing to do with trying to keep really premature babies alive.

I'm sure a lot of people wouldn't take kindly to being required to pay thousands extra to save a premature baby when most of the efforts would cometo naught anyway.

__________________
Science

sanctuary

But that's my point. If we dont want to pay for premature babies treatment, then it seems a bit hypocritical to pay for the treatment ofthe elderly. Both groups have an equal chance at survival, yet premature babies shouldnt get treatment?

And I do agree not treating the premies who are too young to survive, I'm just looking at it from a different perspective.

__________________

Hodge

But again, one group is made up of individuals (who more than likely are making a conscious choice and using their own money/insurance), while the other is made up of a group that is not yet self-aware with the parents not having any say what their money or insurance is used for.

__________________
Science

Cearo

I think it should be determined on an individual basis. If one severely premature child is stronger than another that child should be treated whereas a child who has very little strngth shouldn't.

__________________
For my blogs:
Dog-Eared Notebook, follow the link to the other.

Soccah

Sooner or later, eating babies will be just as normal as bombing Iraqis.

Cearo

Yum! Baby Soup, a Thanksgiving favorite.

__________________
For my blogs:
Dog-Eared Notebook, follow the link to the other.

Hodge

I prefer baby rump roast.

sanctuary

Dont they eat babies in China or something?

__________________

Hodge

I think there's a big, nasty underground thing where people save aborted fetuses and eat them. Bleh.

__________________
Science

sanctuary

eww. I actually saw a video where the baby girl had died, and they cooked and ate her..*gag*

__________________