This is the ugly face of nationalized healthcare and the abortion argument nobody wants people to see.
I'd better not get started on this.
This happens here in the US also - it has nothing to do with nationalized healthcare.
What, so you are saying that NO MATTER what the parent's wishes or resources (ability to pay with or without insurance) are, a baby is just left to die based on their estimated gestation? I would think here you could find a lawyer to make it happen if you wanted no matter what.
As someone who had a baby in the UK I think 2 things should be pointed out here -
1) The Daily Mail is not the most unbiased newspaper, and is in fact quite often anti-government, and their articles reflect that
2) DId you read the actual article? This is not an NHS guideline, it is guidelines set up by an association and in this specific trust, which means area, they follow it. It also says the guidance is not compulsory but advice, so this is a case where the doctor made a fatally bad decision.
There is no doubt this is tragic, but with a less than 1% survival rate for babies born before 23 weeks we don't know that the baby would have survived on his own. This doctor played God and that is the real problem.
Warning
No formatter is installed for the format bbhtml
As someone who had a baby in the UK I think 2 things should be pointed out here -
1) The Daily Mail is not the most unbiased newspaper, and is in fact quite often anti-government, and their articles reflect that
2) DId you read the actual article? This is not an NHS guideline, it is guidelines set up by an association and in this specific trust, which means area, they follow it. It also says the guidance is not compulsory but advice, so this is a case where the doctor made a fatally bad decision.
There is no doubt this is tragic, but with a less than 1% survival rate for babies born before 23 weeks we don't know that the baby would have survived on his own. This doctor played God and that is the real problem.
Thank you.
This is a very sad story and does not need to spark this weeks anti-Obama rhetoric.
Even in the throws of labor I would have the best lawyer I could get at the hospital pit bulling for my infant every step of the way with my measly 1% chance.
And this is a difference between the UK and the US - we are a litigious society and the UK is not. I am not saying a 1% chance is not a reason to fight, but I don't think that blaming this on nationalized healthcare is right, especially when you don't know how the system over there works.
Warning
No formatter is installed for the format bbhtml
And this is a difference between the UK and the US - we are a litigious society and the UK is not. I am not saying a 1% chance is not a reason to fight, but I don't think that blaming this on nationalized healthcare is right, especially when you don't know how the system over there works.
I am not normally litigious but I know for a fact this is one battle I could probably not fight for myself. I am glad I would have the right here in the US to fight a medical decision that I do not agree with in regards to my child, myself or my husband (or parents/in-laws if need be).
I really do not want to get into it on nationalized healthcare (no mention of Obama, please - but being pro-privately run healthcare is not necessarily anti-Obama....not sure how that got played in...Anti-Obama is something like the birthers, which I am NOT) although I do feel that probably played a role somehow and I am not above admitting that I could be mistaken on that. That is just my opinion and conclusion which I am allowed to have/make.
Litigation has its place. It is wantonly abused, but in certain circumstances it is appropriate. Somebody pass me my ACLU card.
And this is a difference between the UK and the US - we are a litigious society and the UK is not. I am not saying a 1% chance is not a reason to fight, but I don't think that blaming this on nationalized healthcare is right, especially when you don't know how the system over there works.
I am not normally litigious but I know for a fact this is one battle I could probably not fight for myself. I am glad I would have the right here in the US to fight a medical decision that I do not agree with in regards to my child, myself or my husband (or parents/in-laws if need be).
I really do not want to get into it on nationalized healthcare (no mention of Obama, please - but being pro-privately run healthcare is not necessarily anti-Obama....not sure how that got played in...Anti-Obama is something like the birthers, which I am NOT) although I do feel that probably played a role somehow and I am not above admitting that I could be mistaken on that. That is just my opinion and conclusion which I am allowed to have/make.
Litigation has its place. It is wantonly abused, but in certain circumstances it is appropriate. Somebody pass me my ACLU card.
In the end we feel the same thing - this is a horrible story and a horrible tragedy and I feel awful for the mom. I just wanted to point out that with the differences and the paper reporting it that there could be more to the story than we know or have been told!
Warning
No formatter is installed for the format bbhtml
It is not in my nature to post something morbid like this, ?but I saw it and was blown away...I have never heard of anything like this before. And yes media, well any story for that matter will have several sides/opinions but it is what it is... wouldn't you agree?
As someone who has been in this position.....it sucks. It happens in the US also, so please don't think this is only a national healthcare issue.....as a matter of fact, from my experience, looks like UK gives babies 2 more weeks than US.
I was in labor and 23 weeks and told if my baby's gestation didn't make it to 24, they would let nature take its course. Which means, the baby wouldn't make it as that is too young to live outside the womb. I made it to 24 weeks....and after my experience, I think there is something to letting nature takes its course - I sometimes wonder if that would have been best to be honest after witnessing what my son went through in the eight days of his life.
I am by no means totally in favor of Obama's health care plan, but it really makes me mad to hear people use this example as an argument as "yet another example of how grim it will be...." ....as this is a tough one that until you have been in the shoes of the people experiencing, is best left alone as you can't imagine being in the situation.
I would like to add, not to defend the doctors in the story as I have no idea the situation or what was going on, but in many cases, doctors do the most they can to try to have the parents spend as much time as they can with the baby when the outlook is fatal.....and I know many parents who are grateful for the moments they had with their child. Sure you want more time but even the shortest life of an infant can have a positive impact on people....I know this from experience. I only put this in because as the OP said, people don't talk of this and its not always some horribly morbid experience....even though the result is they go home without the baby....they can treasure the seconds or moments they got to spend with their child.
Re: Outraged and sad
This is the ugly face of nationalized healthcare and the abortion argument nobody wants people to see.
I'd better not get started on this.
This happens here in the US also - it has nothing to do with nationalized healthcare.
What, so you are saying that NO MATTER what the parent's wishes or resources (ability to pay with or without insurance) are, a baby is just left to die based on their estimated gestation? I would think here you could find a lawyer to make it happen if you wanted no matter what.
As someone who had a baby in the UK I think 2 things should be pointed out here -
1) The Daily Mail is not the most unbiased newspaper, and is in fact quite often anti-government, and their articles reflect that
2) DId you read the actual article? This is not an NHS guideline, it is guidelines set up by an association and in this specific trust, which means area, they follow it. It also says the guidance is not compulsory but advice, so this is a case where the doctor made a fatally bad decision.
There is no doubt this is tragic, but with a less than 1% survival rate for babies born before 23 weeks we don't know that the baby would have survived on his own. This doctor played God and that is the real problem.
Thank you.
This is a very sad story and does not need to spark this weeks anti-Obama rhetoric.
Agreed.
I am not normally litigious but I know for a fact this is one battle I could probably not fight for myself. I am glad I would have the right here in the US to fight a medical decision that I do not agree with in regards to my child, myself or my husband (or parents/in-laws if need be).
I really do not want to get into it on nationalized healthcare (no mention of Obama, please - but being pro-privately run healthcare is not necessarily anti-Obama....not sure how that got played in...Anti-Obama is something like the birthers, which I am NOT) although I do feel that probably played a role somehow and I am not above admitting that I could be mistaken on that. That is just my opinion and conclusion which I am allowed to have/make.
Litigation has its place. It is wantonly abused, but in certain circumstances it is appropriate. Somebody pass me my ACLU card.
In the end we feel the same thing - this is a horrible story and a horrible tragedy and I feel awful for the mom. I just wanted to point out that with the differences and the paper reporting it that there could be more to the story than we know or have been told!
As someone who has been in this position.....it sucks. It happens in the US also, so please don't think this is only a national healthcare issue.....as a matter of fact, from my experience, looks like UK gives babies 2 more weeks than US.
I was in labor and 23 weeks and told if my baby's gestation didn't make it to 24, they would let nature take its course. Which means, the baby wouldn't make it as that is too young to live outside the womb. I made it to 24 weeks....and after my experience, I think there is something to letting nature takes its course - I sometimes wonder if that would have been best to be honest after witnessing what my son went through in the eight days of his life.
I am by no means totally in favor of Obama's health care plan, but it really makes me mad to hear people use this example as an argument as "yet another example of how grim it will be...." ....as this is a tough one that until you have been in the shoes of the people experiencing, is best left alone as you can't imagine being in the situation.
I would like to add, not to defend the doctors in the story as I have no idea the situation or what was going on, but in many cases, doctors do the most they can to try to have the parents spend as much time as they can with the baby when the outlook is fatal.....and I know many parents who are grateful for the moments they had with their child. Sure you want more time but even the shortest life of an infant can have a positive impact on people....I know this from experience. I only put this in because as the OP said, people don't talk of this and its not always some horribly morbid experience....even though the result is they go home without the baby....they can treasure the seconds or moments they got to spend with their child.