No treatment for a baby born at 21+5

[Katz]

Very emotive topic but interested to know what others think,

baby

As a mother with first hand experience of the maternity and neonatal services of the hospital concerned the quality of the communication between parents and medical staff certainly used to be very poor. And there was definately a huge lack of any compassion or emotional support. It would appear not much has changed since my ds was born there.

With IVF the pregnancy starts at implantation basically. In a natural pregnancy it starts at conception, which occurs 7-10 days before implantation. So the woman in america was at least a week further on than reported and closer to the 24 week mark at which more babies are viable than not.

This is heartbreaking but if fewer than 1% of babies born at this stage survive, it can't be worth the pain it would cause the baby surely? They couldn't give him anaesthetic at that age.

I was talking to my mum about this and she said in the 80s there was a baby boy born in Canada at 21+5 and he survived and was quite healthy in the end.

I don't know if they should have helped her. Would they have got in trouble if they had because they weren't supposed to? Morally I don't think I could leave a breathing baby to die without at least trying to help.

Medical treatment has become so much more advanced since the abortion act was created in 1967 and I think it has been due an update for quite some time. I think both the care limit and the abortion limit needs to be reduced to 20/21 weeks.

My initial thought is that with ds1 I knew for a fact exactly when he was conceived, but the scan put him 2 weeks diff to that 'with certainty'. I cant imagine how I'd have felt if he'd neeeded medical help and didnt get it due to his gestational age when I kne he was actually 14 days older.

mustrunmore, exactly the same here, & for more than 1 pg, although for mine it was the other way round & they said I was 14 days further on.

So if one of mine had needed medical intervention they would presumably have got it, but being 2 weeks less developed than assumed they wouldn't have benefited, would they?

I wonder how much those discrepancies account for the tiny percentage who survive.

The article says: "But while survival rates for those born after 24 weeks in the womb have risen significantly, the rates for those born earlier have barely changed, despite advances in medicine and technology."

It is an interesting issue but the photos of the baby show a fetus really, don't they? Those feet and hands are amazing, but that is such an un-developed 'baby'.

Horrendous for the poor mother though.

Agre Morningpaper,sad though it is,he was a foetus,the chances of being able to save him were almost non existant.
As a paediatric nurse,I have nursed babies born prematurely and getting them past the first few weeks is just t he start.
However,as a mother I have experienced threatened late miscarriages and it is your instinct to want t o save the 'baby'.
In this case,however,on balance the right decision was made.

Medical treatment has become more advanced but it still can't do miracles. The survival tayes for babies born before 24 weeks have not gone up despite advances in medical science.

Labour can't always be stopped though, and that in itself is a traumatic experience.

I went into labour at 23 ish weeks and was given drugs to stop it. It was an awful experience.

We have to accept that sometimes a child will die and we cannot prevent that.
Miscarriages/very early labour do happen and whilst they are utterly devestating they are a fact.

The child in the story was very very early, there is such a huge developmental difference between 21+5 and 23/24 weeks, it's not just about medical science, it is about how much the foetus has developed.
There is no magic fix for lungs that are too underdeveloped to ever work properly, there is no magic fix for a heart that is to immature to cope with and sustain life.
At such an early gestation as 21+5 you cannot simply transplant working organs and the drugs that would be given to later babies would in all likliehood be too strong and perhaps even contribute to the childs death.

Being nearly 20 weeks myself (and with a history of many many miscarriages) this story made me very sad but I can say with some confidence that if something as awful were to happen to me I would beg the doctors to leave the poor thing alone and not offer aggressive treatment. I'd be heartbroken but would rather spend a little time with the baby. Barely halfway there (in terms of full term pregnancy) is simply not enough time in the womb.
Feel so sorry for the mother but anger is not going to get her over the death of her baby.

I think they should help where the baby shows signs of life.

I went into sudden/quick labour at just under 21 weeks I was told that there was no hope, my baby was alive but when born would eithr be stillborn or gasping for breath and they would do absolutely nothing at all. I can't really describe that feeling of horror to anyone as there are no words for such sadness, only other angel mums will understand.

My baby didn't make it and I knew when going to hospital that there was no hope as I knew the 23/24 week 'rule'. I was so sad that if only I had gone on another 2 weeks, they may have been able to do something.

It is very easy to say not to treat these babies but if it was YOUR baby you may feel differently, that is one thing going through several awful experiences taught me, you never really know how you react you can only guess.

Oh jelly that's so

I don't doubt that if I were in that position I would want doctors to do something. But it's not an arbitrary rule, I hope you can accept that. Your baby simply wasn't ready. If you had gone another two weeks your baby might have been developed enough, you just can't know. It's heartbreaking, I'm so sorry for you and for the mum in this story, but science can't do everything.

This was a terrible experience for the mother to go through, and it certainly doesn't sound like she had the support she needed before, during and after the birth and death of her son.

But mamamoppel, I feel the same as you. I'm 21+6 pregnant, almost the exact same gestation as this mother was when she lost her baby.

I can say with some certainty that if I gave birth now, I would not want my baby to go through the undoubtedly horrific and painful interventions she would need to try to keep her alive. My baby is a fetus at the moment- much loved already, yes, but I know she would be unable to survive outside of my body.

It's so difficult to untangle all the very emotive threads of a situation like this. For example, it must have been heartbreaking for the mum to feel her baby holding on to her finger, but this isn't in itself a sign of viability. We saw our baby suck her thumb and grab hold of her umbillical cord at the 12 week scan- those reflexes were working at that stage- but of course she wouldn't have survived for a second outside of the womb.

There is one major reason that they wont help and its abortion. They would have to lower the limit if it could be proven that babies under that limit could survive.

The situation you would have is a baby being aborted in one hospital at 21 weeks and another trying to be saved, and all dependant on if the mother wants it or not.

You see if a 21 week old survives it would be a little more than a blob of cells.

The reason that extremely premature babies are not treated is to do with treatment not being felt to be in the babies best interests.

Abortion is currently legal up to 24 weeks, so babies are already being born, and surviving at below the age that they could have been aborted at, so I dont think that influences decisions on whether to treat premature babies or not. Its ridiculous to think that medical staff have some vested interest in mainting abortion laws and that they would withold treatment to support that.

Terribly terribly sad for the mother ut there has to be a cut off point and I agree with what has already been said by Worzel and notevenamousie.

This is not wrong.

agree with bigstripeytiger. It is not in the baies best interests.

Thats rubbish, it has nothing to do with abortion laws and its offensive to suggest such a thing.
"The situation you would have is a baby being aborted in one hospital at 21 weeks and another trying to be saved, and all dependant on if the mother wants it or not."

Thats what already happens anyway. You can have an abortion long past 21 weeks, right up to term in extreme cases of incompatibility with life. So you argument holds no water.

At 21 weeks a foetus is only half way to being born. Its about time we accepted the fact that medical science can only advance so far. By treating a 21 week old foetus you are only inflicting pain and drawing out a long and painful death. Its a tragedy to lose a baby at 21 weeks, but sometimes we have to accept such things, not everything can be fixed.

i have just gone through the trauma of losing my baby at 21 wks two days. I think you should realize the harshness of your phrasing. My baby was not a blob of cells. He was called Jacob and was perfect in every way a miniature baby that was 27 cm in length and had all his features in tact. Just was too wee and tiny to survive. It has only been two weeks and struggling to cope i understand that some babies can not survive as i am going through it now but seeing comments like yours adds to my pain. I get through this knowing i got to see baby hold it bury it and have it recognised as a human being that may not have been here long but he did exist please rem this when you state things such as blob of cells. Going through this was hard enough .