Baby born at 16 weeks turned away

[burstingbug]

It's just been on the Wright Stuff

I'm not saying that at 16 weeks they should be trying to save babys (for now)

and you know, i think that money is fair enough, if that's the answer. i want some money in the pot for my hip replacement, should i need one, so while there are limited resources lines have to be drawn.
althoug for the record, my dh was born two months early over thirty years ago. he's a lovely man and i'm v glad to have him here, but to suggest that he does not still suffer with issues relating to his being premature would be foolish. there simply must be huge ethical implications to treating a child of 16 weeks, barely half of its gestation...

You don't think that a life should try to be saved because of money? Given the chance in my old age to choose between the two I would go through life with a sore hip to give a little one a chance. Once upon a time your child wouldn't ahve survived that early, however advances were made because people kept trying and pushing those boundarys

'In the Netherlands, as a general rule, babies born before 25 weeks gestation, will not be admitted to the NICU and will, hence, be left to die without treatment ever having been initiated.'
from this link:
jme.bmj.com/cgi/reprint/30/4/402.pdf

Paula - that is a very simplistic way of looking at it.

The problem is, everyone wants everything, and the NHS simply cannot provide that.

Thats sad

But surely life and death should come first

Paula, you're right, it is sad.

But even if there was enough money, I think it is hard from an ethical point of view to justify trying to resuscitate a baby born at 22 weeks or less.

I'm not an expert on ethics, and don't pretend to have the answers. Even the experts don't have all the answers.

I don't understand why its ethical to let a baby who might live no matter how small that chance die. That seems wrong to me

But even if this baby did survive - which is igh on impossible I would have thought - at what cost? What disabilities would this baby have, now and int he future. It's l;ittle body is just not ready to be born at 16 weeks, no where near. How many of it's little organs would be still so under developed? What type of life would we be comdemning that child to?

As I have said I personaly feel that 16 weeks right now is too little but one day it might be nothing. The thing is you can't guarentee that the baby will have disabilitys, it might not. I'm talking about 22 weeks here.

we still don;t know the implications of saving babies at 22 weeks .... and they won;t be know for some time

16 weeks gestation, 14 weeks after conception ..is that ever going to be viable?

there has to be a line drawn somewhere

I feel sorry for the doctors/ nurses /midwives/ paramedics who have to make these sorts of decisions every day and live with themselves afterwards. This is why there are guidelines for them to follow. Even so, the guidelines aren't always very clear.

Image of 16 week old feteus

How could it ever survive outside the womb, poor thing. Not a chance surely.

At 16 weeks the skeleton hasn't even begin to harden from cartlidge to bone. No eye lids or eye brows. Skin would still be wrinked with no fat beneath it. Lungs wouldn't be developed. And this is nly just some of it.

One day it could happen. You never know what advances could be made

Paula - yes, one day it could happen. Babies born at 16 weeks could survive.

But:

do we really want it to happen?

Minute babies weighing just a few grams, living in a box with tons of equipment around them, for months and months and months? Not knowing if they are in pain, not knowing if their lives will be full of torture and misery?

I'm not sure if I would want that for my baby.

I agree wholewheartedly with belgo on this

Sometimes it is kinder not to push the boundaries....

Quality of life has to be a consideration, as do the long term health implications of being born far too soon

I doubt advances are to be made by jumping from 22wk babies to 16wk ones. I would think it's more likely that the barriers will be pushed back inch by inch, not in huge jumps like that.

A little baby of 16wks would surely suffer immensely from even something like the tiniest needle being introduced. Love is the best thing he/she could have.

I agree 100% with belgo. I also agree with an adult who is terminally ill being allowed to end their own life and suffering with dignity and surrounded by family, on their terms.

There are things far worse than death.

5 inches - just can't imagine a baby that small surviving I read a blog of a woman whose baby survived at 25 weeks 10 inches long. Beautiful, beautiful boy but I know he had to have surgery on his genital area (as they hadn't been formed yet in the womb) and had extensive brain damage. They still don't know the extent of his disabilities yet even with the best of medical care. I know there were premies on the same ward who were born later that didn't survive.

I just can't imagine a baby born 9 weeks earlier than that and half the size having any chance whatsoever

My goodness aren't we a pessimistic lot.

Have a look at that picture PP. IT's not pessimism, it's just being compassionate and realistic. That foetus is not remotely ready to be born. It isn't just early, it's not yet even a baby.

Of course its a baby. As I said you never know what they'll come up with and it doesn't have to be painful and miserable for the little one. You all make it sound as if I would choose to let these babys suffer.

Is it a baby when it is two cells? Should we be rushing to 'save' a miscarriage at four weeks?

I see what it is now. I get it. I'm talking about survival rates so you are getting your back up because some people are so worried about the possible changes in law that might bring. I wasn't thinking about that. I was just thinking about how better survival rates could lead to more happy endings.