Page 5 of 12 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 113

Thread: 'Doctors told me it was against the rules to save my premature baby'

  1. #41
    Dorset Patriot
    Wessexman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Sydney, Australia(but my heart is back in Dorset.)
    Last Seen
    10-17-17 @ 04:17 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    8,468

    Re: 'Doctors told me it was against the rules to save my premature baby'

    Quote Originally Posted by liblady View Post
    adopt? she's 22.......how about some psychiatric care?
    Indeed, she should be married with 4 children.....
    "It is written in the eternal constitution that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters." - Edmund Burke

  2. #42
    Dorset Patriot
    Wessexman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Sydney, Australia(but my heart is back in Dorset.)
    Last Seen
    10-17-17 @ 04:17 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    8,468

    Re: 'Doctors told me it was against the rules to save my premature baby'

    Quote Originally Posted by Reverend_Hellh0und View Post
    Now the Mail is not perfect but let's repeat it for the likes of Pete and BL who may be hard of hearing. Dismissing a source because they don't like it is not a valid argument in any sense, they should be rightfully torn apart for such tactics.
    "It is written in the eternal constitution that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters." - Edmund Burke

  3. #43
    Advisor TheHat's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Last Seen
    01-17-13 @ 06:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    551

    Re: 'Doctors told me it was against the rules to save my premature baby'

    Quote Originally Posted by MyOwnDrum View Post
    I firmly believe there needs to be a cutoff in providing treatment to premature babies. I am also against abortion, btw. But these babies are really not viable without extremely prolonged, sophisticated and expensive treatment lasting months and costing more than $1,000,000 per baby. Outcomes vary, but greater than 50% of extremely premature babies have significant ongoing medical problems.
    I hope your not in the scientific field or the technology field b/c you are going to bankrupt your company and possibly kill millions in the future b/c you werent willing to advance medicine and technology to save lives.

    100 years from now, a baby at 22 weeks will not only be viable but will be routine. 200 years or 300 years from now? That is the great thing about medicine technology. We find ways to sustain life, b/c that is what medicine is all about. This idea of using medicine to kill is as sick and twisted as the Nazis purging Jews.

  4. #44
    Dorset Patriot
    Wessexman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Sydney, Australia(but my heart is back in Dorset.)
    Last Seen
    10-17-17 @ 04:17 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    8,468

    Re: 'Doctors told me it was against the rules to save my premature baby'

    Quote Originally Posted by TheHat View Post
    I hope your not in the scientific field or the technology field b/c you are going to bankrupt your company and possibly kill millions in the future b/c you werent willing to advance medicine and technology to save lives.

    100 years from now, a baby at 22 weeks will not only be viable but will be routine. 200 years or 300 years from now? That is the great thing about medicine technology. We find ways to sustain life, b/c that is what medicine is all about. This idea of using medicine to kill is as sick and twisted as the Nazis purging Jews.
    That's if peak oil and such don't kick in.
    "It is written in the eternal constitution that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters." - Edmund Burke

  5. #45
    Advisor TheHat's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Last Seen
    01-17-13 @ 06:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    551

    Re: 'Doctors told me it was against the rules to save my premature baby'

    Quote Originally Posted by UtahBill View Post
    depends on what the human does with it....
    I know several people who should be aborted, even tho they are now adults...

    and I know of one child at least, born to a druggie mom, then abandoned by her, and left to "exist" in an institution. the child is severely retarded mentally, and physically. the child is not aware of its surroundings. the child is a vegetable. It is cruel for doctors to not let nature takes its course in such cases.
    And the mothers of such children should be prosecuted for getting pregnant while on drugs and then failing to abort it.
    Once they know the child will be that damaged, abortion is the only thing to do.

    And leave God out of it....if he was interested in the issue, he would do something about it...
    Perhaps you shouldnt be playing God with other people's lives? Who are you to determine what is viable and what is not? Life is life. You have no rights to take it b/c it doesnt meet your own personal standards of living.

  6. #46
    Advisor TheHat's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Last Seen
    01-17-13 @ 06:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    551

    Re: 'Doctors told me it was against the rules to save my premature baby'

    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    That's if peak oil and such don't kick in.
    Good grief.

  7. #47
    Dorset Patriot
    Wessexman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Sydney, Australia(but my heart is back in Dorset.)
    Last Seen
    10-17-17 @ 04:17 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    8,468

    Re: 'Doctors told me it was against the rules to save my premature baby'

    Quote Originally Posted by TheHat View Post
    Good grief.
    Well it is more than likely. Any long term future is likely to be very much more decentralised because we are already eating up the earth's resources with our over-centralised and over-resourced production methods.
    Last edited by Wessexman; 09-10-09 at 12:00 PM.
    "It is written in the eternal constitution that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters." - Edmund Burke

  8. #48
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,998

    Re: 'Doctors told me it was against the rules to save my premature baby'

    Quote Originally Posted by TheHat View Post
    100 years from now, a baby at 22 weeks will not only be viable but will be routine. 200 years or 300 years from now? That is the great thing about medicine technology. We find ways to sustain life, b/c that is what medicine is all about. This idea of using medicine to kill is as sick and twisted as the Nazis purging Jews.
    So just so I get you right.

    You're in favor of, in this case, the tax payers having to foot the bill of potentially tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars for what would be essentially a 1 in a million chance of actually saving the child? Very fiscally responsable of you.

  9. #49
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Last Seen
    11-23-11 @ 10:06 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    3,827

    Re: 'Doctors told me it was against the rules to save my premature baby'

    It's not killing to refrain from foisting the horrors of neonatal intensive care on a 5 month fetus that is not viable.

    The Limit of Viability -- Neonatal Outcome of Infants Born at 22 to 25 Weeks' Gestation

    Results Fifty-six infants (39 percent) survived for six months. Survival improved with increasing gestational age; none of 29 infants born at 22 weeks' gestation survived, as compared with 6 of 40 (15 percent) born at 23 weeks, 19 of 34 (56 percent) born at 24 weeks, and 31 of 39 (79 percent) born at 25 weeks. There were seven stillbirths at 22 weeks' gestation and four stillbirths at 23 weeks. The more immature the infant, the higher the incidence of neonatal complications as determined by the number of days of mechanical ventilation, the length of the hospital stay, and the presence of retinopathy of prematurity, periventricular or intraventricular hemorrhage, or periventricular leukomalacia. Only 2 percent of infants born at 23 weeks' gestation survived without severe abnormalities on cranial ultrasonography, as compared with 21 percent of those born at 24 weeks and 69 percent of those born at 25 weeks.

  10. #50
    Sage
    PeteEU's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Denmark
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:54 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    29,090

    Re: 'Doctors told me it was against the rules to save my premature baby'

    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    Now the Mail is not perfect but let's repeat it for the likes of Pete and BL who may be hard of hearing. Dismissing a source because they don't like it is not a valid argument in any sense, they should be rightfully torn apart for such tactics.
    Since when am I dismissing the story because it is the Daily Mail? I am questioning the story and I have every right to do so. And after further minor investigation you suddenly find out the reality behind this hatchet job of a story.

    Fact: no law or rules were broken. Each hospital each doctor in conjunction with the patient has to make their own decisions on the subject.
    Fact: had the baby lived then it would have set a world record in the earliest born ever in human history by a whole day.
    Fact: Babies born under 22 weeks have an under 1% of survival. That survival rate goes up the further in the pregnancy we go.
    Fact: Babies born at 22 to around 30 weeks almost never live a normal life and are plagued with issues including mental and physical handicap.
    Fact: Babies born at under 22 weeks of pregnancy do not have developed enough things like.. lungs and a heart... kinda needed to live no?

    It is funny how the Daily Mail conveniently "forgot" or down toned these facts in order to yet again go after the NHS. Yes her story is heartbreaking but it is no different than any other woman who cant bear children or has lost a child. Why did the Daily Mail do this story? Because a heartbroken woman accused the hospital of murdering her child? Is that the standard of journalism we have to accept by anyone, a standard that requires every accusation to be published by the media, regardless the validity of the accusation?

    It is also funny that this is not the first time the Daily Mail has done such a story with vague facts and "ups forgot to mention that" bits, and all in order to slam the NHS.

    Now the even funnier thing is that the usual right wing suspects on these boards, bought the story hook line and sink without doing the slightest amount of research.. much like how many thought Steven Hawking would have been "murdered" by the NHS long ago if lived in the UK................and it is even more funny since it is not the first time a Daily Mail story has been published and been torn apart by me and others after basic research and yet the same suspects continue to promote these stories because the headlines happen to fit into their world view....

    So again, I do not dismiss the story based on it is the Daily Mail alone, but what is in the article and the history of "truthfulness" when it comes to the stories done by the Daily Mail on the NHS. Maybe you should call the Daily Mail and ask them to fact check their stories?
    PeteEU

Page 5 of 12 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •