Current Affair Forums

Posted: 25 April 2006 at 1:47pm | IP Logged

Hey

I just been watchin our local news (look east) and the government are thinking about when should a prem baby be classed as to prem to save... so they can save costs to the NHS and due to problems later in the babies life.... The stat's are.. 39% born at 25 weeks live, but at 24 weeks its only 17%...  I think it was Denmark where if a baby is born at 24 weeks it wont be helped...

I was just thinking what your view on this is...

Posted: 25 April 2006 at 2:27pm | IP Logged

ooooo this is a very sensitive issue.

i am a mum to two healthy children.  both were full term babies.  i had no birth complications.  

i kind of see where the nhs is coming from with costs.  money is always at the centre of such situations.  i also realise there is an ethical issue involved.  without having medical knowledge it is hard to base a fair opinion. but on the other hand, if it is shown that at say, 24 weeks the baby's quality of life was going to be poor then i think the money should be invested elsewhere, but only if the evidence showed overwhelmingly that the baby was going to have no quality of life.  i've heard stories where v. prem babies have been resusitated only to have to endure being on medication all their lives or having tubes shoved in every orifice.  on the other side of the coin, there are some incidences where sick or prem babies have been revived, and have grown into healthy individuals.

so my view is very grey, i'm afraid.  like i said, i'm just so fortunate to have never been in that situation.

Posted: 25 April 2006 at 2:36pm | IP Logged

It is difficult but I was under the opinion the doctors oath means they have to try to save life where possible...