British Doctors Debating Whether Or Not To Let Preemies Die
Welcome to socialized medicine…
DOCTORS last week sparked outrage when they branded premature babies born under 25 weeks ‘bed-blockers’ and said they should be left to die.
The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists called for an end to treatment so that £1000-a-day intensive-care cots could be saved for babies with a better chance of survival.
And they suggested that Britain should follow Holland where babies born so young are not treated. Premature baby charity Bliss have asked for NHS intervention and want a bill of rights for babies. Each year, about 800 tots are born under 25 weeks. About 39 per cent of those born at 24 weeks and 17 per cent of those at 23 weeks survive.
Next month, the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health will debate whether it is “unethical” to provide intensive care to babies born under 25 weeks.
The idea that doctors would be debating whether or not is is ethical to try to save a child born prematurely is nothing short of disgusting, yet that’s what you get, I guess, when you put government bureaucrats in charge of your health care.
Tags: Cultural Marxism, Doug Goehring, Mark Schneider, Tracy Potter
Well then… just another reason for me to go to college to work in the NIC-U
Sigivald, if one may judge by waits for specialists, the free market system is doing a heck of a lot better at providing needed capacity. Mean waits for specialists in Canada; 17-18 weeks. USA: 2-4 weeks, tops. The main problems in the USA in assuring adequate capacity? States that decide for the markets where new medical facilities may be built.
If it were even close, I might indulge your argument, but the fact of the matter is that it’s not even in the same ballpark. Whether it’s waiting 2 years or more for a Trabant in East Germany or waiting 18 weeks for a consultation for critical coronary bypass in Canada, socialism is a failure at allocating goods and services.
This is absurd. Governments shouldn’t be able to usurp the rights of parents.
Given a finite number of beds, which exists, and a number of babies that need those beds, greater than the number of beds, <I>some babies are going to get left out</i>.
In such a case, giving the beds to those most likely to survive is necessary triage, and part of the hard but unavoidable choices doctors in the real world – where there aren’t an infinite number of beds, and in fact might be less than there are patients, especially for intensive care - sometimes have to make.
(Socialized medicine is more of an aside than a core issue here. Trauma units in the US, non-socialized, also ship people elsewhere at great risk, or even end up unavoidably causing deaths, if they’re sufficiently overcrowded.
And the free market isn’t great at creating new capacity for things with comparatively low demand and great expense (without commensurate ability to pay).
Of course, a socialized system isn’t great at providing capacity and quality service either, if only because there’s no incentive or decent feedback to do so.)
aren’t docters supposed to save lives not let them die????? Why do they get to pick who lives or dies they need to just do their jobs and keep their mouths shut!
If you the $500,000 needed to attempt to keep this type of premie alive I am sure you can take personal responsibilty and find a fee for service provider.
Exactly, Rob. Doctors can kill patients if the laws allow it. Alicia suggested otherwise.
Welcome to the projected "HillaryCare Health Plan." That is, unless the medical community can find some way to find out if you are a left-wing-loonie at birth.
Actually, Woof, there has been a recent, celebrated court case where the British medical system worked to prevent parents from going to a fee for service provider. Competition in medical care, as in schooling, shows all too clearly that the government version just doesn’t work well.
The Hippocratic Oath also contradicts the Patriot Act. There are several good reasons why we no longer follow it.
"All that may come to my knowledge in the exercise of my profession or in daily commerce with men, which ought not to be spread abroad, I will keep secret and will never reveal."
Do doctors still take an oath to protect and preserve life?…
Unreal. More on the "cult of death". Give me a goddam break. Babies born at 25 weeks are being expelled from the mother’s body naturally for a reason. The fact that medical science has advanced as far as it has that some of them MIGHT be saved does not change that fact.
No, not always. Doctors have actively killed 360 adults in Texas alone over the past 30 years.
Thats what you get when doctors forget the "first do no harm" concept.
Sigivald, if I may expand on Robert’s excellent points I’d also say that the socialized medicine aspect is very much central to the issue. These doctors are talking about saving money as well as saving bed space. In a socialized medical system the taxpayers foot the bill for health care. In such a situation, how long until politicians are able to enact laws cutting down on things they deem unnecessary? Like keeping preemies alive?
It is a scary situation and exemplifies why giving the government any sort of control over our health care is foolish and short-sighted.
I think Alicia was referring to the hippocratic (spelling?) oath, which gets bandied about a lot in discussions like this one. I, personally, don’t put a lot of stock in it. It is a good guideline and all, but sort of meaningless in light of the death penalty example you bring up.
Thankfully, here in America, we have the 5th amendment which requires due process of law before anyone is deprived of their life. That includes preemies (and should include unborn children in their mother’s womb as well), and it is what also allows doctors to end the lives of convicted criminals as allowed by the laws of each individual state (which is what Davey boy is alluding to).
That contradicts more than the Patriot act. Doctors are required to break confidentiality to report crimes like abuse and murder.