Premature babies are bed blockers, according to RMC

[Callisto]

Can't quite get to grips with this: \link{http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/03/27/nprem27.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/03/27/ixhome.html\here}

I'll reserve judgement until i can read the report in full for myself.

:(

if 40% of babies born before 25 weeks have a high chance of survival, surely they should allow that chance?

I cant get my head round thta either.... very

I saw the front of the paper and was really shocked. I have heard something in the past about the high probability of being severely handicapped, but I've never heard them referred to as "bedblobkers" thats just cruelty.

How insensitive and cruel. Bet the person who wrote it has never been in such a situation. Wonder if his/her thoughts would change if it was their child!

Bed blockers!!!!!! Appalled by that thought.

Insensitive wording but I think it's reasonable for doctors to discuss the best use of scarce resources such as neonatal intensive care.

Has anyone actually said that care would not/should not be given?, or is it really just the language used to describe an actual situation?

Apparently it's now law in Holland that babies born before 25 weeks do not get treatment. Heard this on Radio Scotland this morning.

I agee it is sesible to discuss it, but not sensible to use such insensitive, crude language when doing so.

I just saw this on Sky news ( if we press the red button we ge the UK version)

I suppose they have a point but it is a very small point and veyr mean spirited to bringit up

Agree that it should be discussed case by case, but to say that intensive care for all premature babies is a waste of resources is wrong and incredibly insensitive.

I think the wording is extremely insensitive, however, the way I read the artacle it seemed to relate to babies that were born under 25 weeks gestation, and the figures make for very disturbing reading really. 40% of babies born under 25 weeks have a high chance of survival (so that does not mean that they will all survive), of those 40%, only 11% will survive without a disability. So that effectively means that out of every 100 babies born at 25 weeks gestation or under, only 4 will survive without some form of major disability.

I think that as a parent it is very hard to think that your baby, if born at 25 weeks, should perhaps not be treated, but sadly the doctors have to look at the bigger picture, and although to a parent it is about more than just money, money does sadly play a huge part, and often the treatment and survival of these very tiny babies comes at a huge emotional cost to both parent and child. We only have to look at cases like Charlotte Wyatt to see what can happen if a child is kept alive by modern medicine.

I didnt read it as saying it was a waste of resources.

It was being discussed in the context of other mothers in labour with more healthier babies and the risks put to them by having to trasnfer in circumstances where there is a shortage of spaces in NICU.

And since when did doctors get the legal right to decide who lives and who dies? They argue that life should be protected at all costs, and so won't allow euthanasia, but are prepared to withold medical intervention from babies who are born alive before this magical gestation period, ignoring the wishes of their parents? I am speechless with rage....if they want to talk about saving money, then there are many other areas that they could look at, before calling prem. babies 'bed blockers'

This isn't about whether or not a 25 week baby is viable, but whether the child born at the same time but at 28 weeks is more viable and therefore going to take up less resources etc so of course it is about resources. If the nhs had the money there wouldn't even be a question about this.

Poor little babies!

I am the mother of a prem baby - born at 27 weeks. I also have a brother who is a consultant pediatrician and has spent a lot of time working with prem babies.

Firstly I think teh article is missleading in their statistics. At 25 weeks a baby has a 40% chance of survival, at 24 weeks it is about 24% and at 23 weeks about 11%. These are SURVIVAL rates, they don't take into account long term servre or mild disabilities. We are told at 27 weeks our baby had an 80% chance of survival, AND of those who lived, 20% would have servre long term problems, the remainder could go from no problems to mild learning difficulties etc.

I have asked the question of my brother, what would he do if his baby was born at 23 or 24 weeks and he said withold treatment. I have thought about this a lot since then and I have to say I kind of agree with him, I am sorry to say.

There is a shortage of resourses in all areas of the NHS, what this report is saying is that there are many babies born at 25 + weeks who have 60/70/80% survival rates if they are looked after properly ending up being born in hospitals without the best facilities which then mean their rates of suvival are much much lower. If my DD had been born in Colchester where we live, I am almost convinced she would not be the child she is now. If my brother had not pulled strings that would almost certainly been the case. She would have been born there and transferred to another hospital WHEN a bed became avilable (they were trying all the london hospitals, cambridge was full) and I would have styed in colchester until I was well wnough to move. So is that right? When my DD had an 80% chance to live because we were in a good hospital, if we had NOT been able to transfer in time, if no beds had been available, if even more prem babies who were destined not to make it, my dd may have had her chances slashed.

So, forget the insensitive words and think about what is best? Is keeping a child alive like charlotte wyatt the best resourse of NHS money? Or perhaps in the 2 years she has been in hospital (or whatever) 8 or 10 babies like mine would now be running around?? (we were in hospiatl for 14 weeks, so I am averaging it out to one baby every 3ish months!)

If we are going to look at providing treatment based on viability, then where does it stop? Who is anyone to decide which life is viable and which isn't?

With respect Crunchie not all 23/24/25 week babies are as badly off as Charlotte Wyatt. I would hate to withold treatment on a baby who could go on to live a very fulfilling albeit disabled life.

Exactly, Callisto. Are we then saying that all disabled people are non-viable? . That only people with no disabilities are worth medical treatment?

so what is considered to be survival then? if they say that a baby born at 24 weeks has a 40% chance of survival, does that mean that this baby has a 40% chance of surviving into adulthood? fir a year? 6 months? 3 months? 24 hours? because I think the statistics can be misleading.

I think what they are getting at in a rather round about fashion (again - i have yet to read the full report) is the viability of a healthier baby that could potentially be put at greater risk of no beds were available over the viability of a very premature baby.

Its something that has to be discussed i think.

There was a documentary on this issue a couple of year ago. The main thrust of the programme if I remember correctly was that as more babies were being saved at a lower gestation a bank of evidence was building up that suggested it was not in the best interests of these children to be recieving the intensive and invasive treatment that their parents were expecting (or indeed demanding in some cases).

The doctors involved in the programme also described the pressure their resources were under and the sadness (and fury TBH) they felt when older (i.e. 27/28 week gestation babies) were not able to be given the best treatment as the resources were tied-up, in no-hope or very poor prognosis cases. Their general 'cut-off' date in line with Crunchie's brother was really pre-26 weeks

So not a new position at all.