'Do not revive' earliest babies

[Lace Neil Singer]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6149464.stm

Old article I know, but still good for discussion. Do you think that premature babies of 22 weeks or less should be allowed to die in peace, or resuscitated regardless of life expectancy? Has anyone had to make this decision?

By the way, just for clarification; the preemies that the article talks about are 22 week old babies. I'm saying this cuz last time I saw this topic discussed on a message board, loads of people chimed in with "But I was 24 weeks premature and I lived!" Two weeks is a long time in a developing fetus's life.

[crazylegs]

The article states that babies born at 22 weeks have a 1% chance of survival, I'd suggest this is a bit of a moot point really, and seeing as at 21 weeks none survive...

[Flyndaran]

The article states that babies born at 22 weeks have a 1% chance of survival, I'd suggest this is a bit of a moot point really, and seeing as at 21 weeks none survive...

It is not a moot point. The enormous amount of effort, time, and expense "wasted" on fighting a losing battle is not limitless.
Lfie and death are measured, quantified, and given a monetary value in all aspects of reality. We just don't like to see it being done. We like to pretend that money grows on trees and that help abounds.
It doesn't. I would prefer most such decisiions of euthanasia, or "letting nature takes its course" (I nearly burst something posting that expression) to be left to the guardians of said child. Any dirty looks given by staff should result in immediate dismissal.

[BlaqueKatt]

I think this story sums up my feelings on this issue

[AdminAssistant]

I say it's up to the parents. I don't like the thought of doctors having that kind of guideline for action without talking to the guardians. It seems a bit fishy.

[Lace Neil Singer]

I personally think it should be done on a case by case basis, and definitely with the parents fully involved. But in some cases, the baby is not developed enough to exist outside the womb for longer than a few hours, even with medical intervention. Should it really be put thru all that torment, when the end result will be the same, regardless? Wouldn't it be better for the child to die in peace with its parents?

By the way, I mean babies that are so premature, their eyes are fused together, their skin is transparent and like tissue paper, and their organs are not developed.

[Sylvia727]

It should always be the parents' decision, whether it is better to let the baby have a chance at life or have some peace before he dies. This is an ethical question, not a medical one, and role of the doctors and the hospital staff is simply to advise the family. To have a guideline in place sounds to me as if the hospital is trying to make spiritual decisions for the families.

[DesignFox]

I think the decision should ultimately be in the hands of the parents.

That article mentioned that there are organizaions trying to lobby for legislation that says that no matter what you have to try and save that baby's life. Where others are lobbying for the cause of making baby euthanasia legal...(not mandatory, just legal) To me, it's all the parent's decision. If they want to fight a losing battle, let them. If they don't think it's worth it. Also, let them make that decision. If they fight and it works out...also great.

No one should tell the parents what they HAVE to do in regards to an undeveloped/underdeveloped baby. Frankly, if the baby is pre-mature that if it's lucky enough to survive, it will be horridly malformed or gravely disabled- it isn't worth it. If the baby is merely going to suffer, and then die anyway...why waste the time, effort and money?

I guess I'm a heartless bitch, never having been pregnant and not currently wanting any children...but it just seems so ridiculous. We put our animals down if we know they are going to have a shitty quality of life...why do we force our fellow human beings to suffer? I would let the baby die in peace if its option for survival was so low...or if its chances of leading a normal life were so slim.

I believe it is a personal choice that each set of parents should be able to make for themselves, based upon the discussions that they have with their physician.

[crazylegs]

This is an ethical question, not a medical one,

You're quite right, is in an ethical one, however as we know the parental bond can be immense and some parents will not allow their child to die even though causing them to live involves massive amounts of pain and distress.

Who then looks at the ethics?

[Sylvia727]

Who then looks at the ethics?

The parents. Yes, they may be overwhelmed with the gravity of the situation. Who wouldn't be? But it's still their call. They're the ones closest to the infant, they're the ones responsible for his life, and they should be the ones to make that horrible decision. It's the responsibility of the doctors to advise them. Their families and spiritual advisors may be able to help, as well. But when it comes down to it, the parents have the right and the responsibility to protect the child's best interests. An outsider will not be as able to make the right call, whatever that call might be.

[Flyndaran]

You're quite right, is in an ethical one, however as we know the parental bond can be immense and some parents will not allow their child to die even though causing them to live involves massive amounts of pain and distress.

Who then looks at the ethics?

It is not ONLY an ethical question, unless you live in the land of infinite money. All the dollars spent trying to save the unsaveable may have been used for more effective treatments for already living people.

Doctors are guided by ethics, despite what much of the public may believe. Many medical decisions are, and must be, based on the physician's ethics as well as mecial knowledge.

The only argument is about how much power should doctors have in such situations. They must have some if only to keep ignorant parents from "trying to save" never weres like anecephalics or other grossly deformed almost babies.

[Sylvia727]

... if only to keep ignorant parents from "trying to save" never weres like anecephalics or other grossly deformed almost babies.

I read this as if you were saying that premies aren't real people, that they are less than people. Please tell me I'm wrong and clarify your position.

[Flyndaran]

I read this as if you were saying that premies aren't real people, that they are less than people. Please tell me I'm wrong and clarify your position.

Anecaphalics have no brain other than minimal brain stems. They never were babies. There are other gross deformities that render survival let alone a real life impossible even with the most advanced technology.

Of course premature infants are people, more or less, depending on the stage of development. If it's far enough along to survive even a few moments of life in the open, then it qualifies as a person, just barely, but a person none the less.

[Sylvia727]

Ah. I see your point.

[anriana]

From my understanding of the article and the NHS, it's not just an issue of whether or not the parents want to keep the child alive - there is also the monetary cost to consider.

"The inquiry also looked at longer-term support for families, and resource implications for the NHS. "