Think this deserves some more recognition(61 Posts)
Was in my local paper today, girl had baby at 22 weeks or so and doctors wouldn't try and save him because he wasn't old enough to be considered 'viable'
I appreciate we have to have guidelines and to draw the line somewhere but I think there should be due consideration on each individual case. Just wondered what other MNers thought.
OMG that is so sad. I know they have to have guidelines but if a baby (of any age) comes out alive then they really should fight for that childs life. How terribly tragic and unfair for that poor family.
Message withdrawn at poster's request.
can that baby really be 22 weeks? I thought you could still have a termination up to 26 weeks.
No but if they had have at least tried to save the little one then the parents would not feel so hard done by. Perhaps he would not have survived but at least the parents would have felt that someone cared and someone tried. It is awful that they did not even come and look at him.
sorry, not suggesting its not a true story am just absolutely shocked at how perfect he looks.
it must have been absolutely heartbreaking, poor thing.
Message withdrawn at poster's request.
This is dreadfully sad for the parents but it is pretty much impossible for that baby to have survived, whatever was done for him. The thing is, sometimes nothing can be done and intervention would only make things worse. AFAIK no baby born before 23 weeks has actually lived for more than a few hours, the body simply isn't sufficiently developed.
But BHB has a point, it sounds like the medical staff could have acted with more sensitivity.
If a baby is born breathing or showing any other signs of life, I think they should be given a chance.
I have heard of stories where babies have been left and hours later they were still breathing.
Abortion at 26 weeks is too late imho. Unless the child has a severe problem that hasn't been detected before and the mother feels unable to continue with the pregnancy.
Actually, that isn't how I feel at all.
But what you have to consider is the pain and suffering that the baby could experience by resuscitation methods, and is this worth it when there is no chance that the baby will survive? The baby was born before 22 weeks and no baby has survived being born at this early gestation.
Maybe it's better to let the baby die in peace in their parents' arms then putting him or her through invasive treatment that will ultimately be fruitless.
I see the point of no medical intervention but surely to god the doctor could have spared a few minutes talking to the parents and reassuring them about what would happen?
Surely, he deserved that much recognition at least?
the upper limit for abortion is 24 weeks iirc. Except in cases of disability in which case a termination can be carried out until term. (I shall refrane from comment on the latter).
A baby born at 22 weeks could simply not survive, so as heartbreaking as it must be for the parents, surely the best would be for him to die peacefully with his parents rather than being subjected to lots of procedures and dying alone in an incubator?
Recently a report was published re care of premature babies, and while the findings were that more babies born at 24 weeks were surviving due to medical intervention, it showed that before 24 weeks, nothing has changed in terms of survival in the past twenty years.
it is heartbreaking for anyone who gives birth so close to the cutoff point, but sadly there does have to be a point at which docctors know that it is not a life that can be saved.
Thing is they could have dated her out by a week or so.
Can I point people to the story of Lucy Blue born at 22 weeks now a beautiful healthy little girl
bronze - the doctors will take any possible discrepancies in due date into account, as well as the condition of the baby.
As wonderful as the story as Lucy Blue is, that is just one story.
bronze - Lucy Blue was born at a whole week of gestation later then baby Jayden.
I am in two minds about this. I understand your point wannaBe about not making this poor baby potentialy suffer even more but selfishly, I would hope they'd try anything, praying that maybe this once it would work.
I think there will now alway be a doubt in the parents mind <<what if they had only tried>>
Terribly sad, I can only imagine what the parents have gone through. My eyes fill with tears just to think about them.
he was responsive and lived without help for nearly 2 hours.
I think that says a lot about the condition of the baby.
I think it's very sad that the parents are blaming the doctors for a very sad act of nature.
Bronze - at least the baby had two peaceful hours before dying.
thing is, I think we now expect too much of medical science.
It's only fairly recently (prob last 30 years or so) that such premature babies have been able to survive with medical intervention. But survival rates of preeemi's has gone up so much that we seem to have lost sight of the fact that medicine simply cannot help them all.
Also, and I realize this is contentious, but there is a financial element that does need to be considered. In this country we are lucky to have an nhs that will fund the care of many such premature babies (and caring for such a tiny preemi is prohibitively expensive), in other countries it would come down to whether the parents, or the insurance, would pay. But equally here there is not a bottomless pit of money, and rightly or wrongly sometimes the decision to perform invasive procedures on such a tiny baby do need to be weighed up against the cost of doing so, vs the likelyhood of a positive outcome.
belgo... it says on the website
"ReguardleJss of this doctors refused to come and see him let alone consider helping him."
Another thought has just occurred to me. If no baby has been known to survive at the gestation of 21 weeks and 5 days, then if the doctors had begun resuscitation and advance life support -technically very difficult if not impossible on such a small baby, and there is evidence to suggest that premature babies feel painful - then it could be argued that the doctors would have been experimenting on that baby, when they know (due to scientific research, official guidelines and of course their own experience) that there was no realistic chance of the baby surviving.
My son was born at 22 weeks and lived for approx 10 mins. I had been having a hard pregnancy and had been at risk of losing him for weeks, and so was fully aware that my son wouldn't be saved unless he reached 24 weeks but I expect this may come as a shock to someone who goes into labour spontaneously and has no background knowledge of this.
The first ambulance man briefly attempted resuscitation but was told to stop by the second crew that came as they had been told to stop by the labour ward at the hospital. It was very heartbreaking for me to watch them to stop but he was very tiny and would not have survivied. Even though I didn't have any expectations that he would survive I was truly amazed at how formed he was at that age, he had teeny fingers and toes and even had some eyebrows.
More importantly for me would be recognition that he existed. You cannot obtain a birth or death certificate for a baby born before 24 weeks yet I can pay £500 for a headstone and pay the council £100 for a burial plot. If I had given birth 2 weeks later I would have been entitled to some time off for maternity leave despite my son dying, not returning to work after a few weeks off and have my HR manager comment on my absence - oh and I hate the fact he is termed as a miscarriage. I feel desperately sorry for any woman that has a miscarriage but I think in my sons case that term does not do him justice.
Join the discussion
Please login first.