![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif?v=92.1){kind=small}
Very premature babies
I was glad to see a recent thoughtful TV exploration of the UK's treatment of very premature babies.
The conclusion that seemed inevitable was that 23- weekers and below should not be resuscitated - ever - a decision of policy that would prevent individual doctors having to make unpalatable and painful individual choices.
Now I should say at once that I DO know how I would feel in this situation, because I have been there. Our second child was born a month early and became very sick within hours of birth, stopped breathing many times, was in an incubator and lacked all reflexes for days. There never was a point at which doctors knew he would become badly and permanently disabled, but in discussion both I and my partner were very sure that when/ if that moment came, all attempts to revive him should be stopped.. I know my heart was breaking but I also knew my limits... and I didn't see myself asking the rest of society to pick up the job of caring for him for us when we became incapable of doing so.
I also felt - and do now - that we are merely animals in a capricious world, and it ISN'T our 'right' even less our 'duty' somehow to 'save' every life that is born, regardless of all other factors.
In the mix too somewhere there is the idea that Doctors and Nurses must try to act like gods and 'save' life - however damaged and lacking a human future - and the world of professional accolades and rewards feeds this.. you don't see many doctors getting huge public rewards and senior roles for working long shifts 'saving' the mentally ill, or preventing communicable diseases...not 'sexy' like saving babies...
Then into the argument comes the Disability lobby: I say here that if someone is capable of arguing their corner then clearly they are participating in society: it's the tiny infant that is very unlikely ever to participate in society that we are talking about here... but of course now living disabled people and the parents of people with disabilities will feel differently - and much the same argument is made against legal abortion: since we wouldn't want to kill a mature child now with us, how could we possibly advocate destroying any future child in the womb? Recent blogs have aired this position about prem babies, and as ever those who have survived often make claims that this 'proves' that all others must be.. I can't share this position, however cold that makes me seem.
I come back to my basic position.. given that we are so many, and we are merely mortal animals, and there are sooo many live, capable, suffering individuals who need attention, I don't think 23 weekers and below should be treated strenuously to keep alive....we should accept that sometimes babies die. ouch dreadfully sad, but we all die.
The conclusion that seemed inevitable was that 23- weekers and below should not be resuscitated - ever - a decision of policy that would prevent individual doctors having to make unpalatable and painful individual choices.
Now I should say at once that I DO know how I would feel in this situation, because I have been there. Our second child was born a month early and became very sick within hours of birth, stopped breathing many times, was in an incubator and lacked all reflexes for days. There never was a point at which doctors knew he would become badly and permanently disabled, but in discussion both I and my partner were very sure that when/ if that moment came, all attempts to revive him should be stopped.. I know my heart was breaking but I also knew my limits... and I didn't see myself asking the rest of society to pick up the job of caring for him for us when we became incapable of doing so.
I also felt - and do now - that we are merely animals in a capricious world, and it ISN'T our 'right' even less our 'duty' somehow to 'save' every life that is born, regardless of all other factors.
In the mix too somewhere there is the idea that Doctors and Nurses must try to act like gods and 'save' life - however damaged and lacking a human future - and the world of professional accolades and rewards feeds this.. you don't see many doctors getting huge public rewards and senior roles for working long shifts 'saving' the mentally ill, or preventing communicable diseases...not 'sexy' like saving babies...
Then into the argument comes the Disability lobby: I say here that if someone is capable of arguing their corner then clearly they are participating in society: it's the tiny infant that is very unlikely ever to participate in society that we are talking about here... but of course now living disabled people and the parents of people with disabilities will feel differently - and much the same argument is made against legal abortion: since we wouldn't want to kill a mature child now with us, how could we possibly advocate destroying any future child in the womb? Recent blogs have aired this position about prem babies, and as ever those who have survived often make claims that this 'proves' that all others must be.. I can't share this position, however cold that makes me seem.
I come back to my basic position.. given that we are so many, and we are merely mortal animals, and there are sooo many live, capable, suffering individuals who need attention, I don't think 23 weekers and below should be treated strenuously to keep alive....we should accept that sometimes babies die. ouch dreadfully sad, but we all die.
Comments