Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Flip

1 2 3 4 5

Original poster

The Wright Stuff - right to life at 23 weeks?

125 replies

jazz412 · 10/03/2011 10:24

Debate on whether money should be spent elsewhere or on premature babies.

I'm unsure at the moment so debate away and I will listen.

OP posts:

ginnny · 10/03/2011 10:25

Glad I'm at work or I'd be at home screaming at the telly!

Grabaspoon · 10/03/2011 10:26

I think if I had a child born at 23 weeks then I wouldn't resusitate - that's my thoughts. Will listen to the debate though.

tyler80 · 10/03/2011 10:37

Presumably this is off the back of 23 weeks:the price of life program. I haven't watched it yet.

Original poster

jazz412 · 10/03/2011 10:38

grabaspoon, I think I would want my baby alive but not if he/she is in pain.

I also think that it should be case by case not a standard law because if a baby is likely to have a good quality of life it's horrific to put them down like animals.

However if the baby is reliant on machines to live and will never live without them I think it's kinder to let them go. I think it would be the hardest decision but should be the parents decision.

If their planning on cutting money from innocent new borns perhaps they should instead cut money from smokers/drinkers who have only themselves to blame? The counter argument to that would be that both of those categories pay a huge amount in taxes and so would be getting less than their moneys worth?

Difficult to have a definite answer here I think.

OP posts:

NotShortImFunSized · 10/03/2011 10:41

Jazz I was just about to post the same re the smokers etc.

On that programme last night they were saying how if they just made a country wide decision to NOT help babies born at 23weeks then it would same the NHS millions.

But then what about the millions more they spend on people with self inflicted diseases like the smokers, drinkers, drug users???

I know who I'd rather my taxes went towards helping....

Bramshott · 10/03/2011 10:45

Oh dear Lord - this is one of the most controversial and complicated topics ever, with no easy, right answers. What's the betting the Wright Stuff stuff will tackle it in a sensitive and balanced way ?

Mare11bp · 10/03/2011 10:45

i thought that programme last night was fantastic in terms of food for thought - and the journalist presented it in a balanced, sensitive way.

The prognosis for these poor babies is not good. Having said that, how do I know how I would feel once my baby arrived?

NotShort makes a good argument.....

Original poster

jazz412 · 10/03/2011 10:49

Notshort - yes me too but you have to look at it from a non emotional aspect also, the money smokers and drinkers bring in taxes is obviously thousands if not millions more than the new borns who at first are draining and not giving anything back BUT that's not to say these babies won't provide money to the govt. in taxes in the future. However the likelihood of this is quite low as the majority of the babies will be disabled so will most likely be using the NHS all of their lives and perhaps disability allowance.

BUT does the money side mean that people should die?! I don't think so.

OP posts:

Changing2011 · 10/03/2011 10:50

After watching last nights documentary, I would not resucitate. Its the aftercare and ramifications for painful interventions for the child.

And I wont always be around to care...

SardineQueen · 10/03/2011 10:51

Ouch this thread is going to go badly.

Personally I feel that addiction is a terrible thing and that people with addictions deserve to be helped and treated, just a sports players should be treated for their injuries and people with self inflicted injuries should be treated and assisted. People aren't perfect and personally I don't feel that survival of the fittest (physical and emotional) has a place in a civilised society.

For example if a mother of 3 is diagnosed with cervical cancer and she smoked when she was young I think she should be treated.

Just had to get that off my chest.

I saw the wright stuff about the premature babies, it is a terribly difficult question. I am not sure that keeping babies alive for the sake of it - if they are in constant pain and almost certain to die very shortly - is the right thing to do. I understand that argument for doing it is the very small number of babies who "beat the odds" which of course is a hard argument to ignore from an emotional POV. I think this is the reason we need organisations like NICE - to make these impossible decisions, put a price on life when money is not unlimited. I think NICE is being abolished though?

Grabaspoon · 10/03/2011 10:51

Totally agree "However if the baby is reliant on machines to live and will never live without them I think it's kinder to let them go. I think it would be the hardest decision but should be the parents decision"

aliceliddell · 10/03/2011 10:51

sorry? DId I miss something? Self-inflicted? Like road accdents involving cyclists? What has money to do with it? Are you seriously saying you personally would limit the amount you personally would be prepared to spend to save your child's life? I know who I'd rather my taxes went towards, too...Bankers bonus anyone? The only relevant discussion is whether it does any good or just prolongs the agony. Exercise some compassion, people.

Mare11bp · 10/03/2011 10:52

I find it difficult to comprehend that millions is invested in supporting these babies yet terminations are permitted up to 24 weeks.

I am not opposed to a woman's right to choose in any circumstance but have long felt that the time limit for terminations should be reduced to 18 weeks.

Presumably this would save the NHS a small fortune and the funds channelled perhaps into supportimg these young babies.

Hammy02 · 10/03/2011 10:52

The stats are that only 1/100 babies born at 23 weeks do not have severe disabilities due to being born premature. What about the child's right to a decent quality of life. To me it's not about the money, it is about putting the child's standard of living being put ahead of the mother.

Mare11bp · 10/03/2011 10:53

I agree with your point too Hammy.

SardineQueen · 10/03/2011 10:55

Mare restricting abortion to 18 weeks would cost the NHS much more money surely.

One the one had the cost of one abortion.

On the other hand the cost of ante-natal care, birth, post-natal support, health visitors, GPs doing vaccinations etc etc etc

I think your maths aren't quite right - unless you are assuming that the babies will grow up to pay a lot of taxes?

hairylights · 10/03/2011 10:55

A vast number of the babies which are kept alive at 23 weeks die in hospital or go on to have severe and complex problems. Only 1% lives without complications.

But my gut tells me we should not just see this in £.

While there is no Right to life at that stage, I totally understand the drive to preserve their lives.

AitchTwoOh · 10/03/2011 10:56

it woudl be really interesting, i think, to get the perspective of some of the mothers who are raising children with SN, because the more disgraceful thing imo was the way that the professionals abandon these kids having saved their lives. if moving the 23 weeks to 24 would give better resources for disabled children, who would argue?

NotShortImFunSized · 10/03/2011 10:56

I'm not saying that smokers etc shouldn't be treated, just that in my eyes the comparison is the same. Why should anyone have to choose who the money goes towards saving, it's like saying one persons life is worth more than the other.

I don't agree with it.

Bankers bonus - good point alice

I think every case of a teeny baby born before term should be evaluated on the individual baby. It's not all cut and dried. Some babies should be left to die in peace, others should be given the chance to survive, depending on the baby at the time.

hairylights · 10/03/2011 10:56

"put ahead of the mother"?? The parents, surely!!! Otherwise it's another stick to beat women with.

Original poster

jazz412 · 10/03/2011 10:57

I'm finding myself agreeing with everyone! Even opposing views.

OP posts:

AitchTwoOh · 10/03/2011 10:58

they can't know at the time, that's teh problem.

catchmeifyoucan · 10/03/2011 10:58

Ooh lovely - a 'bash the smokers' thread within a thread. Please take note - it's the taxes from the smokers that enable the NHS to offer treatment to, amongst others, very prem babies who would otherwise not survive.

Changing2011 · 10/03/2011 10:59

I dont think it should be the parents decision at all - they are not aware of the trauma involved in resuccitation and cannot possibly give an unemotional answer.

Pagwatch · 10/03/2011 10:59

I thought that the programme cast night was an excellent examination of this issues.
Watching the muppets on the wright show attempt to dissect it into soundbites is something I will swerve I think.

Before watching cast night I would have even in favour of resuscitation. Now I am far from sure.
Given my knowledge of how appalling services are for children with difficulties. Given the fact that they will spend up to £100,000 getting a child home and after that waiting time fir a £30 physic visit is given a waiting time of months. Given the hideous situation that the parents are given such muddled emotional half arses information at a time when they are looking at a scenario that must feel like ' do you want us to kill your baby or not' - not sure. Really not sure.

But this will get wrapped up in two dimensional debates about competition for funds and baby killing so I will go and do something else I think.

Flip

1 2 3 4 5

Swipe left for the next trending thread