• 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'

Yeahhhh... I believe that story.....:doh
 
Sarah Capewell begged them to save her tiny son, who was born just 21 weeks and five days into her pregnancy - almost four months early.
They ignored her pleas and allegedly told her they were following national guidelines that babies born before 22 weeks should not be given medical treatment.
Click to expand...

I can see the mothers pain for a child to be saved but likewise a premature foetus has small chance of survival, less than 1% chance of survival

Medical experts say babies born before 23 weeks are simply too under-developed to survive, and that to use aggressive treatment methods would only prolong their suffering, or inflict pain.
Click to expand...

Seems to me the doctors did the moral thing.

Oh and on a side note. After 5 miscarriages. Adopt lady.
And no, the medical rules should NOT be changed for this one foetus and i find her attempts to upheave rules for the entire country slightly sad.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
Not sure of the mail's status, but I don't take anything you say at face value either. :shrug:
Click to expand...
Python I would not touch it with yours:)

It was a vocal supporter of the British Fascist Mosley, it was a vocal supporter of appeasing Hitler, it also supported the fascist Franco, a leopard never changes it spots.
 
B L Zeebub said:
Python I would not touch it with yours:)

It was a vocal supporter of the British Fascist Mosley, it was a vocal supporter of appeasing Hitler, it also supported the fascist Franco, a leopard never changes it spots.
Click to expand...




Oh yeah? That bad?


Is this story fake? or is it printed by nazis? :2razz:
 
theangryamerican said:
That then begs the question, what is the value of a human life?
Click to expand...

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...
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
Oh yeah? That bad?


Is this story fake? or is it printed by nazis? :2razz:
Click to expand...
If it isn't in the Guardian I don't believe it.;)

Ps Python mate what is the term difference between prem/birth and a miscarriage?
 
B L Zeebub said:
Python I would not touch it with yours:)

It was a vocal supporter of the British Fascist Mosley, it was a vocal supporter of appeasing Hitler, it also supported the fascist Franco, a leopard never changes it spots.
Click to expand...
Most scholars do not consider Franco a fascist; even Orwell mentions he wasn't really strictly fascist in his brilliant Homage to Catalonia. He was not much worse than the Communists in Spain. Only the Anarchists were worth supporting, you can hardly attack the Mail for taking the side of tweedle dee in the contest of tweedle dee versus tweedle dum.

Many people were vocal supporters of appeasing Hitler, it was a strategy that made a lot of sense at the time. It is never a good idea to let hindsight take too dominant in any analysis of historical events at the time. It was just blind luck that Hitler managed to get the US and USSR against him. After we declared war, sure we should have fought on but what we were supposed to do without support from the likes of the USSR, who ended up enslaving half of Europe, and the US I don't know. And during the most of the 1930s Hitler had not done any out and out invasions, and he was an effective anti-communist. Until very late in the 30s the idea of playing the Nazis off against the USSR must have seemed quite an attractive option, particularly for the right. Let's not forget the often pro-communist bent of many of those opposed to appeasement(not all but many.).

I very much doubt it gave too much support to Mosley, who was quite different from Hitler anyway.

And the Mail, one of the most read of English papers, has changed very much indeed. It is not too intelligent but these random smears are silly, particularly from someone who worships the Guardian.
 
Last edited:
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
yeah, so letting that savage bitch's baby die out is the moral thing to do.... :lol: :roll:
Click to expand...
i have a lot of trouble believing anything this woman has said....and the odds were overwhelmingly against that baby's survival and/or chance at a normal life. so maybe it is the moral thing to do.
 
Laila said:
I can see the mothers pain for a child to be saved but likewise a premature foetus has small chance of survival, less than 1% chance of survival



Seems to me the doctors did the moral thing.

Oh and on a side note. After 5 miscarriages. Adopt lady.
And no, the medical rules should NOT be changed for this one foetus and i find her attempts to upheave rules for the entire country slightly sad.
Click to expand...
adopt? she's 22.......how about some psychiatric care?
 
liblady said:
i have a lot of trouble believing anything this woman has said....and the odds were overwhelmingly against that baby's survival and/or chance at a normal life. so maybe it is the moral thing to do.
Click to expand...
Or maybe it is the doctors duty to save its life and not to decide for themselves whether its life its worth it. Now I don't know about this specific situation but this laissez faire attitude I find quite distrubing.
 
MyOwnDrum said:
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.
Click to expand...

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. :thumbs:

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.
 
TheHat said:
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. :thumbs:

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.
Click to expand...

That's if peak oil and such don't kick in.;):2razz:
 
UtahBill said:
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...
Click to expand...

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.
 
TheHat said:
Good grief.:doh
Click to expand...

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:
TheHat said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

article-1196168-05842F67000005DC-14_468x286.jpg
 
Wessexman said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom