What are your views on the recent news that premature babies should not...?

Question

be resusitated if they are born before 22 weeks...

I dont know the full story, just caught bits of it..

what are your views 'for & against'

i think this is such a tricky subject so to the vote it goes

Answer 1

I think this is disgusting. My neice was born at 21 weeks and although she had complications when she was born and weighed just 1lb 4oz she is now a healthy 5 year old with no problems whatsoever

Answer 2

Premature babies born after 22 weeks and those born between 22 and 23 weeks should not be routinely resuscitated unless their parents request for such a service was how I heard them saying on the news. Whilst the independent Nuffield Council on Bioethics may have its reasons for arriving at such a controversial decision, I think much still depends on the parents. So it will, I believe be the parents who will have the sole decision of whether they want any form of resuscitation for their child.
So let us not rush to condemn this medical council as I don't think their views are ill-natured for their oaths are meant to save lives and not the opposite. Obviously they will be cases which will warrant such decisions but the final decision will rest with the parents.
However, I find the whole furore somehow ironic particularly if one were to ask those for pro-life what their views on arbotion were. Many would support the termination of the unborn foetus. I believe once concieved, life becomes precious hence as in arbortion, the parents will decide whether their child deserves to live or not.

Answer 3

T his is a very difficult question if you look at the statistics although a very few babies born as early as this do grow up with out major health problems the vast majority are kept alive to face a lifetime of pain and suffering As a parent if i am being brutally honest with my self ,i know if i was asked to decide i would want the baby saved but i would be thinking of myself and not the suffering i could be inflicting on my child. In nature any child born this early was not meant to live and usually with good reason .After a lot of thought i know i`m not qualified to answer a question like this .

Answer 4

My grandson was born 3 months premature. It kills me me to think that he wouldn't be here, escept for medical intervention.
However, after seeing people still locked in their baby state, 20, 30 years later, I have a sympathy with this decision. Brain damage, blind, deaf etc adults needing intensive care every day and night - I don't know.
I knew even as I looked at my little grandson that if he died, it might be for the best. Today he's healthy, well and gorgeous.
I'm glad it's not my decision.

Answer 5

I think it depends on what the baby's chances of survival are and what quality of life the baby will have,
For example that couple not so long back who went to court to fight the decision of the doctors not wanting to resusitate their baby again if it needed it due to the fact that the doctors thought the poor little thing had suffered enough and things could only get worse for it,
The baby was severey brain damaged deaf dumb and blind (I personally think it would have been kinder to let the baby die) but any way the couple won the appeal and the baby was kept alive on machines it will probably be on oxegen etc for rest of life and obvioulsy not really aware she is even alive,
And now the couple cant cope and given her up for fostering, That just makes me so mad they knew this baby would grow up into a sorry to say it 100% dependant cabbage and they still chose to prolong her life!
Any way I say every life deserves a chance and that chance to live should be given but if the odds of living any kind of life are against them I think its better to let nature do its thing take away the machines.

Answer 6

If the parents want resusitation they should have it. Some babies survive and live wonderful lives after a premature birth. If the parents refuse it, that is their decision and they have to live with whatever happens.

Answer 7

I'm afraid it all boils down to someone thinking that they can save the NHS millions of pounds.

Human life, however fragile, is obviously not worth fighting for when you've got managers and administrators to pay.

It makes me sick. I wonder how many of those administrators would accept that ruling if it were their child born at 20 weeks?

Answer 8

I haven't heard this, but I think it makes sense. Consider that full term is 40 weeks. The best case scenario for a baby born this early is major developmental and health problems, and a poor life expectancy. Sometimes it is better to just let go.

Answer 9

I think that's totally wrong! Many babies do survive if born prematurely-even that early!

I'd actually read that they would refuse to resuscitate newborns that had fatal health problems-though I think that decision should be left to the parents. Personally,I'd never forgive myself not fighting for my child's right to live.

Answer 10

Again, it should be between the parents & their doctors...mainly the parents! Some, not all, premies have problems their whole lives, or die before they reach full gestation anyway.
But, informed parents should decide this one with the help of their doc. Why can't people take care of their own bodies & leave others to their own devices, why is it always 'your' problem what others do?

Answer 11

I need to know the full story as well before i decide to comment further on it