Posted on 03/07/2007 4:30:14 PM PST by wagglebee
Thank you! :)
That was one of my questions.
Would they run these tests REGARDLESS of how I might respond to any test results, especially to prepare for the pending birth of a baby that might need special medical care?
They didn't opt to run the tests anyway, so apparently not.
They knew she had a baby, but they didn't detect a heartbeat, so they thought that the child had died. Therefore, they opened her up to remove a "dead" child. Now here's the confusing part. When they opened the lady up, why didn't they know right then that the kid was alive? Why wasn't the woman notified that the baby had lived? And for three weeks, no less? Prior to all this, why wasn't a ultrasound done on the mother? There is such sophisticated technology now that they can tell everything about a child envitro...!!!!! I'd be retaining a lawyer. Not because of the mistake, but because of not notifying that the child had survived.
Doctors with DECADES of school were wrong about me several times in several aspects. I just quit believing they were smarter about ME. :)
i had one child at the "old" age of 46
and fortunately the midwifery practice respected my views--i didn't wanna know nothin'--i don't think i could deal with that knowledge
and even with the other pregnancies when younger i didn't bother with all the sonograms,exotic blood work etc etc
as i didn't even want to know boy/girl.
i like the surprise announcement.
what i am now wondering,is--will the time eventually come that IF one refuses these tests...you won't get the care or COVERAGE ? THE state will simply refuse/deny you on the grounds of liability,COSTS of care of a severely handicapped preemie etc.
My youngest son was diagnosed with severe hydronephrosis of the kidneys, 6 months into the pregnancy.
After the OB-GYN explained the situation to us, she began discussing abortion (as if it were the next logical step). As soon as she started, I had to interrupt to let her know that we had no intention of aborting our baby.
I am disgusted to this day at her callous presumption.
Nevertheless, there was a legitimite concern that other birth defects were present. We opted to have the sac fluid tested so that the appropriate medical staff and equipment could be present at the time of birth, if necessary (it was explained to us that this benefit far outweighed the very minor risk associated with the test).
There were no other detectable birth defects. My son is now almost 5. His one remaining kidney has kept up with his weight, without a transplant or dialysis. He is, in all respects, quite normal.
We were about 40 years old when we we first informed of the kidney problem. I had the benefit of a strong faith, maturity and experience. However, I can easily see how the OB-GYN could have scared a younger couple into having an abortion.
Second opinions have been known to save a life. Praise God for this miracle!
Some prenatal diagnosis would cause a parent to change the method of giving birth.... if a child has spina-bifida for example, then a cesarean might be less traumatic on the baby. Also, you would be able to arrange ahead of time to have specialists in the delivery room.
The "scan" the article mentions was most likely an ultrasound "scan." Yes a heartbeat can be missed on ultrasound at five-and-a-half weeks gestation, even on the newest tech machines. It's as likely as not to see a heartbeat at that stage. When we do an ultrasound at that stage and do not see a heartbeat, the docs usually recommend a repeat sono (aka ultrasound) in one to two weeks. By six weeks, and surely seven weeks, a heartbeat should be evident. Sometimes the mom has her dates just a little bit off, and at that early stage, a week can be the difference between seeing a heartbeat in a 2 to 3mm embryo and not even seeing the embryo.
As for the D&C the docs did on this woman, thankfully it was half-a$$ed and the baby survived.
Here's yet another one!
Baby fights for life in Italy after abortion attempt
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1797156/posts
Excellent question... and a frightening thought.
Just saw that one too--saw that you had already been pinged. Poor little babies--it's open season.
They're dating the pregnancy from the last menstrual period - so 5 1/2 weeks is more like 3 1/2 weeks from conception. And if ovulation occurred 4-10 days days late, the baby would only be 2-3 weeks from conception - and the heart doesn't start to beat until three weeks. Maybe it was just too early for a heartbeat. Maybe her dates were off.
They didn't open her up, they did a blind D&C, got some blood and uterine lining, which is what they'd expect to see. But they missed a spot, where the baby was by a blessing, and he lived.
Mrs VS
Yes. Abortionists, including Planned Parenthood, earn a living off of it.
Why so reactionary? Have you had an abortion yourself, and you're trying your best to defend your decision?
Agreed. She didn't sue because...? There's a fine line where it's "okay" (in my book) to sue - this is one of them.
So they took the baby out? And the baby survived...and they told her 3 weeks later?? (I'm sorry, I'm just slow. I still am confused about the article. It was unclear to me) What the heck is up with that?
Hahah, nevermind. I'm dumb. I figured it out! (Go me!)
-Glass
Thanks for the ping!
Oh I love that photo. Just learning to stand huh. 8 months?????
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.