• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

Ethereal said:
This is a good argument for abolishing all government welfare.

I mean, if an innocent newborn baby isn't worthy of our tax dollars, then how can you justify giving money to a lazy / irresponsible grown up?
Click to expand...

Most adults who need hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical care to prolong their lives by a few days don't get it either...or at least they shouldn't unless they're paying for it out of pocket.

Ethereal said:
This incident merely highlights the inevitable conclusion of all leftist social policy. That a person's ultimate worth is simply a function of tax dollars; a variable in some indiscriminate equation which determines the most "pragmatic" option.
Click to expand...

As opposed to the laissez-faire approach, whereby a person's ultimate worth is simply a function of his income; a variable in some indiscriminate equation which determines the most "profitable" option.

The bottom line is that **** costs money, and there isn't enough of it to go around for everyone to have everything they want. And unless you're paying your medical bills out of your own pocket, someone (whether it's the government or an insurer or a charity or a hospital) is going to be concerned about the costs. Since other people have costs too, it makes sense to deny ludicrous treatments such as this one, where the baby would die anyway after a few hours longer and a few hundred thousand dollars more.
 
Last edited:
Laila said:
The reason there is a cut off is because the likelihood of it surviving is extremley low.
Click to expand...

True, but there is still a chance. The morbidity and mortality rates of preterm neonates has decreased over the years while the threshold of viability has increased.

Also, do we know the weight of this infant? Because that's an important factor to consider.

What is the point in giving false hope to parents and then it dying anyway?
It's a waste of money and resources which can be directed at perhaps babies who have a higher chance of life.
Click to expand...

Sure, give the money to the babies. If there's a shortfall, just take it out of the welfare funds.
 
Ethereal said:
True, but there is still a chance. The morbidity and mortality rates of preterm neonates has decreased over the years while the threshold of viability has increased.

Also, do we know the weight of this infant? Because that's an important factor to consider.
Click to expand...

Someone posted earlier in the thread that this would actually be a world record if a baby this premature survived. I didn't check the veracity of the claim, but assuming it's true, it means that the survival probability is something like one in 100 million (depending how you calculate it). At any rate, they're so low that it's just not worth the expense.
 
Kandahar said:
Someone posted earlier in the thread that this would actually be a world record if a baby this premature survived.
Click to expand...

Records are meant to be broken...:2razz:

At any rate, they're so low that it's just not worth the expense.
Click to expand...

What about this guy?

Miracle child

Even the most ardent critics of early-intervention would be disgusted by this since they maintain that parents, and not doctors, should decide whether or not to issue treatment.

In the 1960s, interest in infants at the edge of viability began to grow dramatically, and newly minted neonatologists became self-appointed guardians of the rights of borderline neonates; the new privileges trumped the competing rights of family and community. Technical improvements progressed spectacularly; "with the skills we have developed," one zealous team exulted,3 "[we] can bring a peach back from death." This blinkered focus has resulted in a fall of neonatal mortality rates to lows that are now unprecedented in all of human history, and neonatal intensive care has expanded into an enormous industry. A recent survey by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality4 found that "the total national bill for... prematurity is estimated at $11.9 billion in [the year] 2000." These charges (converting the charges to actual costs would reduce this amount by roughly one-half) are for acute hospital care; they "do not reflect physician and other professional fees." Neonatal intensive care units have become "profit centers"; one unit accounted for half the total yield of the entire academic medical center, "not just peds but the whole place—a total gain of $10 million" (J. Lantos, written communication, 2003).

Compassion or Opportunism? -- Silverman 113 (2): 402 -- Pediatrics
Click to expand...
 
I don't know about this individual case, but I am aware of an often inordinate focus placed on lifesaving measures at all costs even if the suffering caused is so severe and intense as to be far more unpleasant than earlier death would be. The case of Andrew Stinson should indicate that:

[ame="http://www.amazon.com/Long-Dying-Baby-Andrew/dp/0316816353"]Amazon.com: The Long Dying of Baby Andrew (9780316816359): Robert Stinson, Peggy Stinson: Books[/ame]
 
Last edited:
Agnapostate said:
I don't know about this individual case, but I am aware of an often inordinate focus placed on lifesaving measures at all costs even if the suffering caused is so severe and intense as to be far more unpleasant than earlier death would be.
Click to expand...

In this case we'll never know, since he's dead...;)
 
Ethereal said:
Records are meant to be broken...:2razz:
Click to expand...

OK, perhaps the NHS should focus on breaking a more affordable and less random record. Highest percentage of the public vaccinated against swine flu. Biggest reduction in diabetes and heart disease over a ten-year period. First country to find an effective cure for pancreatic cancer.

The money would be better spent on any of those things than something like this.

Ethereal said:
What about this guy?

Miracle child
Click to expand...

An anecdotal story is not convincing evidence. For every story like that, there are literally millions of cases where the baby did NOT survive that prematurely. There are much more cost-effective ways to save lives.

Ethereal said:
Even the most ardent critics of early-intervention would be disgusted by this since they maintain that parents, and not doctors, should decide whether or not to issue treatment.
Click to expand...

I have no problem with that if the parents are paying the bill on their own. If they aren't, it's perfectly reasonable for whoever IS paying for it (whether a private insurer or the government) to look at the cost-effectiveness of the procedure.
 
Last edited:
Kandahar said:
An anecdotal story is not convincing evidence.
Click to expand...

It's not anecdotal.

For every story like that, there are literally millions of cases where the baby did NOT survive that prematurely.
Click to expand...

The threshold for viability has steadily increased throughout history due to advances in medical technology and methodology. These advancements are the consequence of innovation and determination, whereas you see nothing but obstacles. That is not how science, or the human race, advances.

There are much more cost-effective ways to save lives.
Click to expand...

As long as you don't hide the fact that government health care will be nothing more than exercise in cost-effectives, I'm in no mood to complain. That was basically my point from the onset.

I have no problem with that if the parents are paying the bill on their own. If they aren't, it's perfectly reasonable for whoever IS paying for it (whether a private insurer or the government) to look at the cost-effectiveness of the procedure.
Click to expand...

But she is paying for it. Unless, she hasn't done her taxes?
 
Agnapostate said:
Oh. Is it not typically the case that preemies lack critical capacities integral to relatively comfortable existence outside of the womb, or is the nine-month residency just a formality? ;)
Click to expand...

Key word: Typically.

Since this one wasn't given treatment, we'll never know whether or not it was a typical case or an exception, like this one:

Miracle child
 
Ethereal said:
The threshold for viability has steadily increased throughout history due to advances in medical technology and methodology. These advancements are the consequence of innovation and determination, whereas you see nothing but obstacles. That is not how science, or the human race, advances.
Click to expand...

When there are a significant number of babies who survive in the 22nd week, THEN it will be time to consider changing the cutoff from the 22nd week to the 20th week. :roll:

Ethereal said:
As long as you don't hide the fact that government health care will be nothing more than exercise in cost-effectives, I'm in no mood to complain. That was basically my point from the onset.
Click to expand...

Which is different than private insurance...how?

Ethereal said:
But she is paying for it. Unless, she hasn't done her taxes?
Click to expand...

So I have the right to demand that my private insurance company pay for any medical bills I want (whether they're covered under the policy or not), as long as I pay my premiums?
 
Kandahar said:
When there are a significant number of babies who survive in the 22nd week, THEN it will be time to consider changing the cutoff from the 22nd week to the 20th week. :roll:
Click to expand...

This particular infant was born in the 21st week. Either way, that isn't the point. Progress comes from innovation and determination, not a fixation on the obstacles or a deference to the status quo.

Which is different than private insurance...how?
Click to expand...

Choice.

So I have the right to demand that my private insurance company pay for any medical bills I want (whether they're covered under the policy or not), as long as I pay my premiums?
Click to expand...

Not the same. This woman was never given the option to pay, nor was she consulted on the specifics of the plan.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom