Think this deserves some more recognition

[Dawnybabe]

justice4jayden.webs.com/jaydensstory.htm

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.

That's very sad bluebump, and gives a whole new perspective to the issue.

I agree miscarriage is not the right term for the birth and death of you tiny son.

bluebump so sorry for your loss.

I agree that the issuing of a death certificate should occur for any baby that is born alive and that it should not be termed a miscarriage.

The stats don't take into account babies such as Jayden though. They'll mark him down as not surviving at his gestation yet they don't know if he would have because they didn't try.
The youngest children to survive in this country were Alex Franks, born at exactly 22 weeks in 1999, in London, and Millie McDonagh, who was the same gestation when she was born in Manchester, in 1997. They would not have done this without medical intervention. Why them and not Jayden? He had more chance than most considering how long he fought for.

I wouldn't want to be a doctor but I do think the government need to rethink things.

Why does a baby born earlier but survived two hours have less right to life than say a baby born at 27 weeks who needs immediate recuss.

I'm sure there are cases where its best to let them go b
ut to not even consider it when a baby is doing so well...

x posts

bluebump Im so sorry
I think the birth cert thing is crap too
another thing that needs changing

problem is that with all these sorts of cases the people it matters to often dont have the energy left for the fight

Arguing the specific rights and wrongs of a case like this are very difficult when you only have the parents' account of what happened, the doctors will be bound by confidentiality. Maybe in the parents eyes the baby was doing well, but the doctors could have had a very different opinion of this.

Where does the cut off point for 'at least trying' lie? Give an oxygen mask, but nothing else, or start chest compressions, and if the baby is still surviving, find a vein, start pumping full of drugs, all the time knowing that there is no hope of a happy outcome, and the baby could be experiencing pain and distress.

I believe the earliest a baby has been born and lived is 22 weeks actually. You can terminate at any point up until term btw by law (it's only easier until 24 weeks) if you can show that carrying on with the pregnancy would be harmful to your mental or physical health. I doubt this is every (or rarely) done though.

but they didnt even give him or his parents the dignity of being seen by a doctor.

More here:

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1211950/Premature-baby-left-die-doctors-mother-gives-birth-just-day s-22-week-care-limit.html

"Miss Capewell, who has a five-year-old daughter, has a history of miscarriages and after bleeding heavily 12 weeks into her pregnancy with Jayden, she was closely monitored by doctors.
She was rushed to hospital by ambulance at 21 weeks and her waters broke at 21 weeks and three days.

She said: 'Because I had not reached 22 weeks, they did not allow me injections to stop the labour or steroid injections to help mature the baby's lungs.'

Miss Capewell was told the baby was likely to be stillborn and as her contractions continued, a chaplain arrived to discuss bereavement and planning a funeral.

'When he was born, he put out his arms and legs and pushed himself over,' said Miss Capewell.
'A midwife said he was breathing and had a strong heartbeat and described him as a "little fighter".

'I kept asking for the doctors but the midwife said, "They won't come and help, sweetie. Make the best of the time you have with him."'
"

That is heart wrenching, SomeGuy.

they should have tried. Dates aren't accurate. and 'i think that in the majority of cases a baby born at 22 weeks cannot be 'saved'. the damage caused by the use of oxygen alone would be terrible, and there would likely be brain damage.'
brain damage is not the end of the universe you know.

There was also a girl called Amillia, who was born in Miami at less then 22 weeks. She survived.
I think they should have tried,if that was the parents' wish.
Also I don't get the fact that you can have an abortion up to 24 weeks, no problem, but at 22 weeks baby is potentially considered viable?

winnybella: this is a bit of a controversy, the 24 week date was set when that was basically the date of viability, it's since got earlier, but the abortion cut-off has not been moved, basically because any changes tend to be perceived as trying to stop women having access to abortion.

I am anti laet abortions (past 12 weeks) but I also think the DR's did their best for this baby by not intervening.

I may feel very diferently if I were the mother, though.

SomeGuy thanks for explanation.
If even small proportion of babies does survive before 24 weeks, they should change the abortion limit, IMO. And this has nothing to do with women's freedom to choose.
Anyway, as Riven said, brain damage is not necessarily the end of the world and maybe that was the risk Jayden's parents would have taken happily.

If even small proportion of babies does survive before 24 weeks, they should change the abortion limit, IMO. And this has nothing to do with women's freedom to choose.

In reality it does. There was a recent attempt to reduce the limit to 21 weeks, but it was characterised by dishonesty and Christian fundamentalists whose motivations were indeed to restrict the right to choose.

See for instance: www.abortionrights.org.uk/content/view/143/106/

"Dorries shows a staggering disregard and lack of compassion for the difficulty of women's real circumstances. Only a tiny proportion, less than 1 per cent, of abortions take place between 21 and 24 weeks and they are needed by women facing the most exceptional and difficult circumstances. Her Bill would force women to go through with a pregnancy even if they were facing appalling domestic violence, if they had been raped or were a victim of incest, or had been delayed in the system through no fault of their own.

"Her Bill is not based on science, but the pressure of the anti-choice lobby. None of the medical professional bodies - the British Medical Association, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, and the Royal College of Nursing - support calls for a reduction in the time limit for abortion."

SameGuy you're absolutely right about motives of Christian fundamentalists groups etc., I have no doubt about it.
I was saying only that it just doesn't make sense, to me at least. I am not against abortion per se, but I feel that because any change to law is perceived as a threat to women's reproductive rights, certain amendments which would be perfectly logical IMO are not passed.
I am aware of the supposed risk that if we give a finger, they will try to take the whole hand and further reduce women's rights. I still think it's v.strange that there's some double standard used here (22 weeks- viable, but can proceed with abortion til 24 without any serious reason).

tmmrj - did you really mean to post that comment?

This one -

"i know it's not the end of the world riven but it's not great either is it?"

More 22 week survivors here

No one was saying about it being an outcome that was being wished for but imo I think you are being insensitive saying it isn't great, like the child isn't any good.

Clearly we disagree.

I must be crazy as I was expecting a child with Edward's Syndrome and when he was born NT I didn't know how to feel. I hadn't got the baby I was expecting.

Feelings are complex things..