What does everyone think of this

[marie695]

I happen to agree with itk that it is not our decision to make. What will happen will happen.

I also agree with Lone Star that the doctors may believe the infant will not survive or have major handicaps.. but as he has proven they can be wrong.

I had a little girl born at 28.4 weeks and 3lbs 3 oz and to see her today no one would ever know she was born premature. Having been in the position to have to make a decision on whether or not to do everything possible at the time for your child is so emtional and would bet that every mother would beg and plead for all measures to at least be tried to save that child.

Just my thoughts on the subject.

Marie

[andymascall]

I saw something on the TV about this and apparently less than one percent of babies born pre 22 weeks survives at all - let alone with disabilities or handicapped in some way.

That said - I would not like to be the parent who gets told that "we are not going to do anything for your child"

Where do I stand on the subject?

Heart says - treat at all costs

Head says - agree with no treatment

If it happened to me - well I just don't want to contemplate it..........................

Andy

[Ridryder 911]

I saw something on the TV about this and apparently less than one percent of babies born pre 22 weeks survives at all - let alone with disabilities or handicapped in some way.

This is why when I hear people discussing that their child was born < 22 weeks and do not have disabilities, I question the gestation birth. Many physicians have been known to be wrong on the date.. as well there is quite a bit of difference from 22 weeks and even 24, 25 weeks of development. Surfactant and lungs as well as eyes, many < 22 weeks are even born without formal eyelid development, external ear pinna.

It again comes down with education. (Hmmm funny how we use that word a lot) and informing the parents of the truth...

honorable and yes, truthfully if it is your child, every parent would want to do the best.. but, that is the key word "best" .. what is best for the child, parent and society? Yes, it affects more than one can expect. The overwhelming costs, emotional demands, and other family members...thisi is why it is used to be a highly debated ethical dillema.. most medical practitioners agree the best is to let nature take its' course....

R/r 911

[Kountess]

I am one person who knows the difficult choices parents have to make in this situation, a few years back I was told that my body was rejecting my pregnancy and I was 19 weeks if I chose to continue I put my life in danger as well as the fetus, so they induced my labor and I delivered, my son lived for 22 minutes his little body went thru so much in such a short time that yes I told them not to let him suffer. but it has to be the parents choice, I for one believe in miracles yet one did not happen for me. there is no right or wrong in this. things happen.

KA

[JPINFV]

This dont have anything to do with DNR's this is about babies that are born before 22 weeks gestation

DNR's are a different ballgame all together........

Terri

The point about DNRs was in regard to being here "to save a life." No one should be here to "save a life" when the patient's wishes, via an advance directive or a surrogate requests otherwise.

How about cases where the patient's surrogate makes the decision to withdraw lifesupport? Besides, this decision (life support for babies who did not achieve 22 weeks of gestation) isn't a decision made by the doctor but a recomendation provided by the doctor. Science should always trump emotion.

[DwayneEMTP]

I read a book written by an ER doc. The only really good one I've ever read by a doc, EMT, or Paramedic.

(If someone knows this story feel free to straighten it out...otherwise I'll tell it the best I remember...I can't find the book)

Baby delivered in the ambulance, mom rushed to maternity (haven't worked in a hospital so I'll do the best I can with names and places) Baby is given to the ER doc.

He calls neonatal (?), I can't remember what they did to stabilize the baby...and the Babydoc asks the baby's weight.

The ERdoc tells him 450g (or there about), Baby doc says to let him go, babies are not viable below 500g. ERdoc (not ours) says the baby seems to be moving a lot, breathing well....hell...I don't know....he's making the arguement the baby is viable anyway...whatever that would take...

Babydoc refuses....Long story short...the ERdoc is forced to leave the baby die in one of the rooms....He says nurses, paramedics, students etc, spend the DAY going in and out...holding it's hand...crying...until, hours later it dies and is taken away....

I don't know the answer to Ruff's question...but if this is what we're talking about...Well...I don't like it...It seems better to go whole hog, or end the suffering...

By the way...I'm not claiming this story is true, only that I read it in a non-fiction book...and yes, I'll find it if it's important to verify to anyone I didn't make it up...

Have a great day all...

Dwayne

[whit72]

First, thank god I do not live in London.

“The BMA is opposed to euthanasia and therefore we agree that the active ending of life of newborn babies should not be allowed,” Calland said in a statement.

Well I am glad they are opposed to, and can agree on, that the euthanasia of babies should'nt be allowed. I am opposed to people using the word baby and euthanasia in the same sentence.

[JPINFV]

First, thank god I do not live in London.

“The BMA is opposed to euthanasia and therefore we agree that the active ending of life of newborn babies should not be allowed,” Calland said in a statement.

Well I am glad they are opposed to, and can agree on, that the euthanasia of babies should'nt be allowed. I am opposed to people using the word baby and euthanasia in the same sentence.

Well, the youth in Asia were babies not too long ago, what's wrong with that...

/going to hell

//Window seat please

[Eydawn]

One should never apply this decision based on a number. Every pregnancy, every human development within the womb is slightly different. I personally have many friends that were born at 22, 23 and 24 weeks of age; one of them had to undergo a surgery that had an 80% chance of ending his life, but if successful would ensure his normal mental development. He's a mathematical genius. My other friends have slight, if any, noticeable deficits.

This idea is absurd as a generality that could be applied incorrectly to so many specific instances. And it should never be a unilateral decision by any means. I hate numbers used in this way- life so often contradicts them.

If we are to educate parents, so suddenly thrown into this situation, we must take steps to ensure that the highest quality care is given to the newborn until the parents have reached a point where they can intellectually and emotionally make their decision. Thus, if they decide to go for broke and try, even though it's statistically unlikely that their child will survive, the correct measures have already been implemented.

This is going to be a bit of a philosophical/religious aside from this point forward, so if such things offend you, please do not continue to read.

I believe that it is *ultimately* not up to us as human beings to decide when or how a life will end or continue. We may be guided to allow life to end in certain instances, for example, a completely VERIFIABLY brain dead individual on life support, but again, these things are never clear and simple. I believe that the work we do as medical professionals is necessary and a calling, and if it is someone's time to die, then they will die despite all of your best efforts and interventions. I think it is presumptuous of me, as a person, to say "Oh, well, you were born at 22 weeks so you don't get the astronomically minimal chance you have already at life. I'm just going to let you pass away."

Why did we develop this technology in the first place, if we aren't going to utilize it? We learn more about developmental physiology on a daily basis. There may come a point where survival rates for babies born at 22 weeks increase, due to what we have learned through caring for those who didn't make it. There may never come a point where this happens But there is still a chance.

I believe that doctors have a right and the ethical obligation to inform parents that the chance of survival is minimal and that their child may struggle with deficits if the child even survives; I do not, however, believe that this devalues that life in any way, shape or form. Just because someone has deficits does not mean that their life does not have intrinsic value, nor that they lack enjoyment in that life. This strikes a nerve with me the same way that terminating a Downs or other "defective" pregnancy hits me.

I also know that despite all odds, people survive when they aren't supposed to. One of my professors has suffered blunt trauma cardiac arrest TWICE, and is still walking, talking, cussing and enjoying his life to the utmost. That's not supposed to happen. Blunt trauma asystole is supposed to be DEAD. But he isn't. Therefore, I reserve the right to respect and support those parents brave enough to tell the doctor that they want to try anyway. Because many people will just do what a doctor tells them to, and that is a scary thought.

That's enough for now; I have a workshift to get to.

Stay safe out there.

Wendy

CO EMT-B

MI EMT-B

[vs-eh?]

If we take the mentally that just because they are less than 22 weeks that they dont deserve to live then we are not doing our jobs. God decides who lives and who dies not the doctors not the nurses nor not the ems workers, we are his tools he uses to aid these people.

We base probability for lack of survival, based on EVIDENCE and SCIENTIFIC research to show that the RATIONAL PROBABILITY of survival/"normal lives" of certain fetuses is very low to non-exsistant. The same can be said for people who die truely do to blunt trauma. There may always be exceptions to rules, but that does not equate to "godly" interference, only to elements of knowledge that might not be totally understood yet.

If GOD (I assume the literal God, who you believe is omniscience, omnipresent, and omnipotent and actually exsists) decides truely who lives and dies than your intervention is simply for show. Either that, or you should do nothing for these children and let God do his work. I'm sure the parents would go for that...

So does God offer a refund to those parents that choose to keep their child alive during this "unlikely" time and die? What if they are paying huge fee's for life support and are now severely in debt. after the child dies? Does God repay them? How?