Posted on 11/15/2006 9:41:44 AM PST by presidio9
Premature babies born before 22 weeks gestation should not be given intensive care treatment to keep them alive, according to a report released on Wednesday.
Despite medical advances in prolonging life, the Nuffield Council on Bioethics said the chances of an infant surviving after less than 22 weeks in the womb are very slim and that they often develop severe disabilities.
In guidelines issued to help doctors and parents make difficult decisions about the care of extremely premature infants, the report recommended parents of babies born after 23 should be consulted and have the final say in whether intensive care is given to their baby.
"Natural instincts are to try to save all babies, even if the baby's chances of survival are low," said Professor Margaret Brazier who chaired the committee that produced the report.
"However, we don't think it is always right to put a baby through the stress and pain of invasive treatment if the baby is unlikely to get better and death is inevitable."
The report by the independent body that examines ethical issues raised by new development in medicine was released after two years of research. It stressed euthanasia of newborn babies should not be allowed.
CLEAR DISTINCTIONS
Religious leaders welcomed the report saying it sets a clear distinction between interventions to cause death and decisions to withdraw or withhold treatment if it is thought to be futile.
"This reaffirms the validity of existing law prohibiting euthanasia, and upholds the vital and fundamental moral principle that the deliberate taking of innocent human life is always gravely wrong," the Church of England House of Bishops and the Catholic Bishops' Conference of England and Wales said in a joint statement.
They added that doctors do not have an overriding obligation to prolong life by all available means and said every case should be judged on its merits.
The report said it should be normal practice to give intensive care to babies born between 24-25 weeks gestation unless it is agreed by the doctors and the parents that there is no hope of the infant surviving or that the level of suffering would be too great.
Intensive care should not normally be given to babies born after more than 25 weeks in the womb because they have a high chance of survival and a low risk of suffering from disabilities.
Dr Tony Calland, chairman of the medical ethics committee at the British Medical Association (BMA) said the guidelines issued in the report echo existing best practice.
But the BMA did not agree with stringent cut-off points for treatment and stressed that each case should be assessed independently.
"The BMA is opposed to euthanasia and therefore we agree that the active ending of life of newborn babies should not be allowed," Calland said in a statement.
Although the number of premature babies surviving has been increasing since the 1980s, only about 1 percent of infants born between 22 and 23 weeks gestation survive to leave hospital, according to the report.
"We believe that the guidelines will help parents and doctors to make decisions in these very traumatic situations," Brazier added.
ping
Freepmail wagglebee or little jeremiah to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
The Culture of Death is getting much bolder in their desire to kill babies even after they are born.
Ping.
They shouldn't be given food or water either. We denied them for Terry Schivo on the basis of words from her ex-husband over those of her parents.
I hate it when they try to play God. The next thing you know, they will tell us no health treatment for all those age 75 and older based on their age.
"Natural instincts are to try to save all babies, even if the baby's chances of survival are low," said Professor Margaret Brazier who chaired the committee that produced the report."
How on earth can anyone say something like this with a straight face? How about if we just quit offering any intensive care to any person, why would we want to put them through all of that additional stress if they don't have a 100% chance of survival. Heck, let's stop offering chemo to cancer patients, their chances of survival are very low and chemo treatments are very stressful.
I was born very premature, I don't know if it was as early as 22 weeks, but I do know that I spent a lot of time in IC. I am very thankful that Margy Bra was not my mother.
They used to say before 28 weeks, then 24 weeks. Lucky my 25 weeker made the cut off. Grrrr. Good thing they didn't try to kill MY baby!
That baby is now ten years old and very smart.
So do these people also advocate withholding scientific advances and medical treatments from adults who are just going to die anyway?
The only people who should be deciding to give care to their 22 week old infant is the parents!
Personally, if I had ever had a 22 week old baby born prematurely I probably would have held them and loved them till they pased away because the chances of the living is pretty slim to none, but who am I to tell another family what they should do or have to do with their premature infant.
Which explains why infant mortality rates by birthweight are higher in Europe than in the U.S. In the U.S., low birthweight babies are given a chance. In Europe they are declared DOA, set aside to die, and as they aren't considered viable they aren't live births and so do not get recorded in the birth statistics. This makes it seem like European health systems do a better job on infant mortality. They don't. And whenever you hear some advocate for a government takeover of health insurance or medicine say so you can pretty much figure that he is a talking head for the left.
"Liberals born to otherwise normal parents should not be given intensive care treatment to keep them alive, according to a report released on Wednesday.
Despite medical advances in prolonging life, the chances of a liberal infant developing ethics or even common sense are very slim and that they often develop severe dependences."
There, I fixed it. Liberalism has put far more strain on society and a few premies struggling for life ever will. What a group of arrogant, self righteous people.
If universal health care is to work, there will be a Department of Death. If Americans decides to give over their decisions on health care options to the government, they will reap what they sow.
As I recall, determining the date of conception is rather unprecise. Beyond the obvious ethical issues, is deciding who has a chance to live, based on a potentially incorrect number, reasonable?
I guess the parents could declare the premature baby as an illegal, then folks will be jumping over each other to treat him/her.
I can't imagine what an empty void my life would be without him.
I don't think I should comment on this article further.
I don't think I would want to put my baby, who is that premature, through all the suffering associated with trying to save her/him.
I wouldn't consider it trying to "play God" if I let my baby die a natural death.
If we don't stop them it will soon come to this.
Just take them out behind the hospital and dispatch them with a pitchfork, right Bandita?
After all, there can't be as many as the "only 2,000" partial-birth abortions each year? It's a minimal problem.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.