Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

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:
Bottleofbeer · 10/03/2011 12:28

Just a thought but could those that do make it actually be a little older than 23 weeks? although gestational age is usually pretty accurate it's not unheard of for it to be a week or so out. A week or so makes a huge difference in maturity.

Geepers · 10/03/2011 12:30

My dates are exact as I know when I ovulated as I was tracking it, but the drs questioned whether they could actually be earlier than I thought as the babies were less developed than they would have expected. I was 23 plus 5.

Bottleofbeer · 10/03/2011 12:34

Twins generally are a little less devloped than single babies aren't they? even those five days could have made all the difference. It's not exaggeration to say even days make a difference.

I'm really pleased your twins are fine, it's babies like yours that make the debate so difficult. How can anybody say they shouldn't even try when if even just the tiny minority make it? Yet I see both sides of the argument.

PlanetEarth · 10/03/2011 12:36

It's really not just a question of money, is it? The smokers are a straw man.

At 9% survival and only 1% without ongoing health problems, surely the sensible route is not to artificially keep such tiny babies alive? (And it is always artificial, isn't it, they wouldn't survive without intensive medical care).

Geepers · 10/03/2011 12:37

We didn't want our babies to be saved at all costs. In fact, if we had been asked we would have declined treatment immediately after birth due to the very high potential of brain damage.
Neither of our babies sustained brain bleeds, or brain damage of any kind that we can tell so far. Obviously they are only 13 months so time might change that but it's obvious that our twins are very far from profoundly disabled.

Geepers · 10/03/2011 12:38

PlanetEarth, the trouble is 'ongoing health problems' can mean something as minor as needing glasses. Should babies not be saved just because they may have poor eyesight growing up?

hairylights · 10/03/2011 12:42

Geepers it's great that your twins are well.

You can't actually be entirely sure when you ovulated (just when you got your LH surge) nor how long the egg lived before it was fertilised.

Those extra days may well have made the difference.

Thing is 23 weeks is the cut off point as far as we are able to ascertain

Planet that was my point about it not being a 'right'. If it's only artificially possible then it's not really a right, is it.

AitchTwoOh · 10/03/2011 12:42

nightmare, geepers, but i do think that while the money was clearly well-spent in terms of your boys it is badly spent for the most part. therefore i would personally support the movement of the line to 24 weeks... which i feel awful saying to you because it would have been at such tremendous cost.

Original poster
jazz412 · 10/03/2011 12:46

so perhaps the abortion age should also be moved to 23 weeks?

OP posts:
Geepers · 10/03/2011 12:49

Surely moving the abortion age would increase the cost to the nhs as most babies aborted at the gestation have disabilities detected at the 20 week scan. Therefore if there is less time to abort them, then actually there will be more babies with disabilities to care for at birth?

hairylights · 10/03/2011 12:50

I really think bringing abortion into this argument is a bit of a red herring. Has nothing to do with reviving/supporting very premature babies.

ladymystikal · 10/03/2011 12:51

Hi vajazz, unfortunately that's not the case... Yeh with new equipment and the medical field progressing every year, these babies can live longer. But as the programme says it just means the inevitable sad conclusion is just drawn out for an extra 4,5,6 weeks or whenever. It was such a sad, emotive programme. My dd was born at 30weeks. If she was born at 23, I just don't how how I could say bye to her Sad

Original poster
jazz412 · 10/03/2011 12:51

23 weeks is after the 20 week scan though?
I just find it odd that if we're saying babies should be saved at 23 weeks then how can we also say we can abort up to 24 weeks?
if the cut off point for survival is 23 weeks the it would make sense for all cut off points to be 23 weeks?

OP posts:
NotShortImFunSized · 10/03/2011 12:52

"Therefore if there is less time to abort them, then actually there will be more babies with disabilities to care for at birth?"

Geepers what do you mean, do you mean they won't have time to abort so they will have to be born?

That wouldn't be the case as in abortions for medical reasons these can be done at any time.

Original poster
jazz412 · 10/03/2011 12:52

Hairylights - fair point, but it is when deciding when the cut off point for right to life is surely?

OP posts:
fishfingersandcustard · 10/03/2011 12:59

I don't think it is really right to life - if a 23/40 baby survived independently I don't know who would advocate killing them. It is more about at what age is it right to give intensive and extraordinary treatment and also sadly the suffering that goes along with that.

Pagwatch · 10/03/2011 13:01

Abortion is possible up to full term for disability.

PfftTheMagicDragon · 10/03/2011 13:05

Jazz - the abortion limit is linked to scientific viability. It is VERY important that the link stays intact.

hairylights · 10/03/2011 13:14

Absolutely not Jazz two completely sets of circumstances.

I am pro choice, and I therefore believe in the right of the mother to choose - whether it's a viable baby or not, in the case of abortion.

Why is it important that the abortion limit is linked to scientific viability?

(I very much want children and have had three miscarriages, but that has no bearing on a woman who does not, for whatever reason, want to carry a baby to term).

hairylights · 10/03/2011 13:17

That didn't actually come out like I meant it to.

Viability though, should not necessarily be the main driver in setting abortion timelines.

PfftTheMagicDragon · 10/03/2011 13:19

hairy, it is important because once that link is removed, the limit will be chipped and chipped away at until it is lower and lower. Once the link is removed, there is no concrete reason, only morals, to keep it at a certain gestation. So it will only be a matter of time before it's down at 10 weeks.

Bottleofbeer · 10/03/2011 13:38

Pfft, I don't agree. I think that since 24 weeks is viable the limit has to be lowered. It's madness that on one ward they can be battling and very possibly suceeding to save a 24 wekkers life and on another they're terminating another foetus of the same gestation.

If we can save a life at that stage it's morally wrong, in my opinion to be able to end a life at that stage.

We now pretty much know a 23 weeker has little to no chance, so cut it off there. PS I'm not anti abortion.

bemybebe · 10/03/2011 13:39

sidge "Unfortunately historically money in the NHS seems to be allocated based on the 'sexy' stuff - HIV, children with cancer, intensive care, transplants - and rightly so.

But the 'unsexy' stuff such as elderly care, mental health, learning disabilities attracts less funding and publicity. And that is wrong."

100% with you here.

hairylights · 10/03/2011 13:44

Oh Pffft good point. Hadn't thought of it that way.

Would that be your answer, Bottle if a fetus was deemed to be so severely disabled (at say, 25 weeks) that it would be born in severe pain, remain in pain for the rest of it's life, have no quality of life, and only live to three months? Are you saying that there should be no choice to abort in those circumstances?

Bottleofbeer · 10/03/2011 13:48

Not saying anything of the sort hairylights.

Woman finds out she's pregnant, waits for months and months to do something about it. Then is still legally entitled to abort that pregnancy at a stage the baby would be viable and where on some ward somwhere close they're battling to save the life of a baby of the same gestational age. Befoe anybody says anything like it's never that simple - I know of three women off the top of my head who aborted so late on for no other reason than they didn't get round to it sooner.

It's for reasons like that it needs to be lowered. I didn't even bring abnormality into it. You can abort legally up to 40 weeks due to disability, actually.