My feed
Premium

Please
or
to access all these features

News

Baby born at 16 weeks turned away

111 replies

burstingbug · 21/06/2007 09:23

It's just been on the Wright Stuff

OP posts:
Report
cba · 21/06/2007 09:24

How awful, poor mother.

Report
FioFio · 21/06/2007 09:25

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

HenriettaHippo · 21/06/2007 09:26

That reads like real Sun-style sensationalist writing at its worst. Written to shock and upset. I think it's appalling journalism.

Report
goingfor3 · 21/06/2007 09:28

It wouldn't have survided trying would have just given the parents false hope and prolonged any agony for the baby. My first baby was born at 20 weeks and at that stage it is better to let the baby die in peace.
I agree that they could have treated them with more compassion.

Report
bookthief · 21/06/2007 09:30

The hospital should have taken its lead from the parents and accepted the baby at maternity if that's what they wanted.

Agree at 16 weeks there was no chance - I'm amazed that its lungs were even mature enough to breathe that long, perhaps dates were wrong?

Report
burstingbug · 21/06/2007 09:30

I think the WStuff took it from another paper, although I only found it on the online sun

OP posts:
Report
cylonbabe · 21/06/2007 09:30

bad journalism.
its a miracle thebaby was breathing. but i think the maternity unit did the right thing.
babies bron before 23 weeks dont even require a death certificate. all of whichis based on solid grounds.
truly awful for the family. my sympathies for them.

Report
mytwopenceworth · 21/06/2007 09:31

Yes, s/he probably would have died. But, you know, maybe, just maybe, not. Smaller and smaller babies are being saved. This little one was breathing without assistance, that surely has to mean s/he had some fight in him/her (I just can't bring myself to type 'it'), some prems don't do that. They never gave him/her a chance. You know what I thought though, 16 weeks and you can still abort. It made me wonder how many late abortions are delivered breathing.

Report
goingfor3 · 21/06/2007 09:32

The baby was only 5 inches they wouldn't even had any equipment small enough to treat it with.

Report
hatrick · 21/06/2007 09:32

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

goingfor3 · 21/06/2007 09:33

mytwopenceworth - I thought that they killed the baby before late abortions.

Report
FioFio · 21/06/2007 09:33

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

BabiesEverywhere · 21/06/2007 09:36
Sad
Report
BibiThree · 21/06/2007 09:37

I lost a baby at 16 weeks and he was absolutely tiny. I agree that the chances of this one surviving were incredibly small, but also think that mother and baby should have been treated better than this.

Report
Callisto · 21/06/2007 09:54

I lost a baby at 16 weeks too and it was hell. I was very lucky to have very sympathetic and understanding staff. I feel really sorry for the parents of this baby, but I wouldn't believe a word the Sun says about their treatment tbh. Also, if it is hopital policy to not treat babies born under 22 weeks the paramedics would have known this so it doesn't really add up to me.

Report
Callisto · 21/06/2007 09:55

I don't live in a mansion with tons of people running after me btw, staff meant doctors and nurses.

Report
LIZS · 21/06/2007 09:58

Agree I would have thought the paramedics would feel less qualified and suitably equipped than the midwives to deal with such a young baby. I wonder if perhaps the dates got confused or the story hasn't been entirely accurate. Surely the mother/baby would have been taken to an EPU initially ?

Report
lulumama · 21/06/2007 10:00

article implies the baby would have survived if admitted to maternity unit.....extremely unlikely, in fact impossible i would have thought.....but yes, the parents should have been treated with compassion and dignity

Report
NerdMagnet · 21/06/2007 10:02

It sounds like the family were treated appallingly, and without any compassion or care.
The baby would not have survived despite medical intervention, but the family should have been supported and given privacy to hold their baby until he/she died.

Report
edam · 21/06/2007 10:04

One of my friends is a neonatal nurse - will be interested to see what she makes of this. Agree with everyone who said no hope of survival at that age but parents and baby should have been looked after. I can't imagine A&E is a good place to be with a baby who is struggling to survive.

Report
FioFio · 21/06/2007 10:06

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

Marne · 21/06/2007 10:08

So but surely the baby would'nt have pulled through, maybe the maternity ward was full up and they had to prioritise other prem babbies which actualy had a chance of surviving.

I think if i was the mother i would of wanted them to at least try,after all its a living person but in the eyes of the NHS it is not a living person. So sad but if it did survive what sort of life would it have?

My heart goes out to the mother.

Report

Don’t want to miss threads like this?

Weekly

Sign up to our weekly round up and get all the best threads sent straight to your inbox!

Log in to update your newsletter preferences.

You've subscribed!

Aitch · 21/06/2007 10:09

i just don't think there's much truth in this.

Report
NBuGgeration · 21/06/2007 10:15

Shocking journalism there.

Stupid Sun paper.

Report
burstingbug · 21/06/2007 10:19

The baby and parents should have been treated much better than this and given a chance.


I'm hoping that the Wright Stuff checks out some of their more sensitive subjects for accuracy, or do you just think they side 100% with the papers?

OP posts:
Report
Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.