Posted on 06/06/2005 8:42:14 AM PDT by Pikamax
A couple in our church had complications during their pregnancy (OK, so the wife was actually the pregnant one) and their daughter was born at 23 weeks. She stayed in the neo-natal intensive care unit for what seemed like forever. For the first year of her life, she had several visits to the hospital and caused many sleepless nights for her parents. She is about to celebrate her 4th birthday this summer and, other than being a little smaller than kids her age, has shown no signs of being developmentally behind anyone.
Oh yeah, and she is about the cutest, most loving little girl you will ever meet. I look forward to a big hug and smooch from her every Sunday morning.
But, just to make a point, when the cost of education is brought up here on FR, the overwhelming cry is "how can a school system spend (insert a 5 figure amount here) educating children?" "I want that amount to teach my child, (or the amount in vouchers.)" The fact is the cost of educating the severely handicapped is worked into that seemingly outrageous figure. It does not cost 10k a year to educate a normally healthy or mentally average child. But these kids mentioned here are expensive to teach, it is a hard, cold fact. At the least many of these kids will need individual nurses, and/or assistants in school. Some of these little guys will need residential or day placements and the cost there begins at 75K a year and skyrockets to over 1/4 million A YEAR, until the child turns 22.
So before some of you get on your high horse about the sanctity of life, remember this when you want to rail against the cost of educating that life.
"...by the age of six only 20 per cent of surviving children had no disabilities - 22 per cent had severe disabilities, including cerebral palsy; while 34 per cent had milder problems such as a squint."
20+22+34 = 76% What happened to the other quarter of the babies? Did they die?
I would say that if a squint (assuming this doesen't have some special English meaning) is the level of disability we are talking about then 54% are ok or slightly disabled. Not a good enough reason to start consigning people to death.
The disability rights folks better stop worrying about how wide the staircases on cruise ships are (or whatever) and they better start worrying about the "do - gooders" who are very soon going to attempt to exterminate them. Esp. if they are poor and/or have no families.
And the rest of us better remember that each and any one of us can join the ranks of the disabled any day.
This article is very unclear!
If you have never seen a preemie in NICU it is a very disturbing sight. There is equipment attached to every part of their bodies and machines are controlling every major function. This is extraordinary medical intervention to keep alive a child who would almost certainly die without it.
I would not judge a parent who did not want to use these extraordinary measures or a parent that chose to use any method available to save their child. These decisions are agonizing. IMO this is a decision to be made individually between the parents and the doctors.
":IMO this is a decision to be made individually between the parents and the doctors"
That's the problem, with this the parents have no say, only the doctors.
I agree. My problem with the article was that it does not even begin to explain the level of medical intervention that is required. Also, the level of intervention probably varies substantially based upon the medical condition of the child (even for babies born at exactly 24 weeks)
IMO these decisions cannot be made by such an overly simplistic approach. Each child deserves a medical decision based upon his/her individual situation. I can see no valid argument for saying that any person/child of any age or condition is entitled to anything less.
I wholeheartedly agree. It's a complicated issue, but all medical decisions are made using risk and quality of life assessments - they always have been. If there is virtually no chance for a person's survival, allowing nature to run its course is the most humane thing to do, assuming the case that death is imminent and unnatural means of temporary sustenance would only cause intense suffering. No one should be forced to die in prolonged pain, whether you're 12 weeks old or 100 years old.
I don't support euthanasia; but I also don't see the point in using unnatural means to fight what God and nature obviously intended to make happen .
Of course not! An outcome such as your son had is what the parents of extremely premature children (and anyone else!) would hope and pray for.
I know another poster mentioned the economic cost of caring for extreme preemies, both at birth and then for the rest of thier lives. Most who survive are not as blessed as your son is. That is a valid but cold point.
But economics aside there is an emotional cost to the family, including other siblings, of raising an extremely handicapped child. Just as there is in keeping any extremely ill person alive. And I don't mean keeping them fed and hydrated, but I mean extrodinary medical means to extend a painful or unconsious life. Just because medical science can, doesn't mean it should.
My mother-in-law has OPCA with symptoms similar to Lou Gehrig's. She hasn't spoken in years, has to be fed, can't focus her eyes (to read or watch tv), has no control of most voluntary muscles, can't walk, can barely swallow without choking, etc. She doesn't know that her granddaughter will graduate hs this week. The nature of her disease means that my husband will probably go down the path of increased medical intervention to keep her alive, even after home care ($600/week plus my husband for 48 hrs of the weekend) becomes impossible.
That is not a life. I firmly believe that to save an infant's or anyone's life through extrodinary means with a good possibility of an life like I've witnessed my MIL go through thest last 7 years is horrible. I wouldn't wish that life on my worst enemy, much less my baby. And I wouldn't gamble on it against overwhelming odds. I believe the medical professionals who have drafted this policy are basing it on this type of experience -- not a disregard for life, but a desire to ultimately reduce unreasonable suffering.
The problem, though, is that by carte blanch policy, all these liitle ones would be doomed to death, regardless of their prognosis or parents wishes. Look again at the stats that someone posted. If accurate, 54% of these kids do well. 20% have no issues, and 34% have a mild disability (my son would fall into this group because of his ADHD and a minor nureological issue). Half of these kids are functional with little outside care needed and they can cope in normal societal situations. But, because of the "inconvience" of the other half, under what this person is advocating, all should be left to die.
Look, this is an issue between parents and the docs. The docs need to be very upfront wiht parents in this situation about what the long term risks are if the child survives and the parents need to make some hard choices. My son was not supposed to make it. The docs gave him pretty much a zero percent shot at life, let alone a "normal" life. The other side of the story is that my son was a twin. His twin brother (1 lb 4 ozs) died after five days in the NICU. He was the stronger of the two and more developed (lungs, etc.). My wife and I knew what we were facing in all of this and we made choices based on that information. And yes, in many respects, we were blessed in how it all turned out.
The whole issue I have is that to save one half from what you call pain and suffering you condemn the other half to death. Leave this to the parents and the docs, there is no use in getting the govt involved here.
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.