When my son was born prematurely at 27 weeks, no one asked me if I wanted them to try to keep him alive. His tiny body, weighing less than 2 pounds, couldn't have survived without medical intervention, but he received it without question and he thrived and grew into the amazing, perfectly healthy 7-year-old boy he is today.
But babies born just a few weeks sooner than he was would get no medical intervention and would be left to die if a top doctor in the UK has her way. Dr. Daphne Austin, who heads up the NHS, says very premature babies -- those born before 24 weeks -- are too expensive to save. In a recent documentary she said keeping them alive is "prolonging their agony," and that the money used to treat them could be better spent treating things like cancer. She also said doctors are "doing more harm than good by resuscitating 23-weekers."
As harsh as it sounds, I've got to say I agree with her in some ways.
With my son we were lucky, blessed, under a lucky star, or whatever you want to believe -- but he is the exception for babies born so small. Many at his gestation have long-term disabilities and challenges that they and their families must deal with for life. And he was born a full four weeks after the limit this doctor is talking about. Four weeks is a long time, a lifetime really for these babies.
According to an article in the Daily Mail, of the babies born before 24 weeks gestation, only 9 percent ever leave the hospital. The rest die. Of those who survive, only 1 in 100 escapes without a disability like blindness or cerebral palsy. There are discrepancies in the exact statistics depending on who you ask, but the bottom line is that the odds are very much against these babies.
Everyone loves a great preemie miracle story, and they're beautiful, truly they are. But there are many more families who lose their children after extreme measures are taken or who live painful lives trying to help children with extreme medical needs.
Also, while you never want to put a price on a life, the fact is that the extraordinary efforts taken to try and save these babies are expensive. In the United States alone, premature births cost $26 billion, and if that money could be used to help save lives that have better chances of being saved, then we have to at least consider that fact.
Modern medicine is amazing, and our instinct is to fix anything and everything and marvel at our powers. But sometimes that power goes too far, and we have to step back and let nature step in to guide us. That's tough for me to say, because if doctors had stepped aside when my son was born, I don't think he would be with us today, and that very thought crushes me. But there has to be a line drawn somewhere it seems, a humane line that doesn't try to force a life that may not be meant to be. I don't know if 24 weeks is the line, but it is an important part of the discussion that's going to continue as prematurity rates continue to rise.
Do you think very premature babies should be resuscitated?
Image via Cesar Rincon/Flickr


This Hot Dad Wants to Do Your Ironing
This Hot Dad Wants to Cook You Dinner
This Hot Dad Cooks AND Does the Dishes
Kanye West is Gay?!
















Comments 73
Huh, easy to say when it's not your baby, when it's probably the only child you'll ever have due to age, health, infertility. Easy to say when it's not YOU.
I second the thought of a poster above. If this passes, then why not refuse treatment to certain cancer/disease patients with poor possible outcomes? I mean, think of the money we'd save!! Ugh.
Wait until the hospitals refuse to resuscitate your newborn...just wait. I bet you will go ape-shit, worried sick and feeling hopeless.
There should be no line. The choice should be up to the parents. Doctor's take an oath to preserve life and they should stand by that oath.
This pisses me off. Of ALL the things money is wasted on, I would never consider "saving money" by refusing to treat children born before a certain deadline.
Let's save money by cutting out social programs before we touch the idea of cutting costs in the L&D ward.
anyone that can live, should. now if they can voice an opinion on it then sure cut the support but if not it's their duty to do the best they can to keep them alive. so what some kids have problems? their parents don't love them any less and if they don't try to keep them alive then their rate for survival is 0% and we can't learn how to keep other's alive.if they at least try then they have a fighting chance and 9% sounds better than 0%.
A 23 weeker girl Niamh who made it through The NICU (In The Hospital my Son was born at). The Hospital has seperate SCBU's since my Son spent only a few hours in 1 of the Hospital's SCBU's being heated in a tent before returning to me on the ward. And going home with me 24 hours after his birth. Niamh was/is without complications and disabilities
http://www.onetruemedia.com/shared?p=84a8c492ae437ab5a5e1b7&skin_id=601&utm_source=otm&utm_medium=text_url
A 24 weeker boy Max who had many trials/obstacles to overcome in order for him to survive against the odds (In NICU at the back of the Neonatal Unit). Same Neonatal Unit In The Same Hospital my Eldest Daughter at full term spent her 1st 7 days of life on on IV/IM antibiotics, getting heel sticks to test her blood and being bottle fed on demand every 4 hours. But my Eldest Daughter never left the Neonatal Unit Admission area, never entering the NICU. Today Max has to wear glasses but that is a small issue, compared to all the issues of prematurity tough baby boy Max had to overcome.
Max's Early Start
Dated 22 November 2006
http://maxsstory.blogspot.com/2007/01/22-november-2006.html
Max at 18 Months-22nd May 2008
http://maxsstory.blogspot.com/
I think it should be left up to the parents.
While I'm sure some may disagree with this comparision think about how many people choose to put their pets down as opposed to pursuing the expensive treatment for various ailments. Doesn't necessarily mean that they didn't love their pets dearly. Of course a child is not your pet, it is your child. But essentially if my child was born EXTREMELY early and had very little chance to live a normal healthy life without major disability, does it make sense to put the rest of my family in poverty from the medical bills to attempt to save them? So my healthy son, husband, and myself could possible suffer for the rest of our lives to keep a roof over our head, food in our bellies, etc just because we tried to save a life that wasn't meant to happen?
I personally think that human nature makes us force a lot of people to live who are in so much pain that it really is almost cruel. We think that we should do whatever it takes to save a life, but I feel that I'd rather die then live a long life with severe disabilities or the consistant irritance of going to the doctor all the time to try to keep illnesses at bay. What is the point of life if you can't truly enjoy it?