Baby born to brain-dead woman dies

A very sad day indeed, I pray for the family, now having lost both wife and child.

www.cnn.com...

McLEAN, Virginia (AP) -- An infant born last month to a severely brain-damaged woman died Monday after emergency surgery to repair a perforated intestine.

Mod Edit: If you truly don't care...don't post

[edit on 13-9-2005 by alien]

Originally posted by Brende

Originally posted by valkeryie
A very sad day indeed, I pray for the family, now having lost both wife and child.

www.cnn.com...

McLEAN, Virginia (AP) -- An infant born last month to a severely brain-damaged woman died Monday after emergency surgery to repair a perforated intestine.

I'm sorry, I don't mean to sound insensitive, but I just don't care. There are better things to feel sorry about, like yourself. Really. One childs death compared to a thousand in Russia because of terrorists? Get your priorities straight.

Sacrifice one to save the many...

And if anyone cares, I do have children, so please, don't go there.

Get yours straight.

They're ALL tragic. The difference here is this child's death wasn't engendered as a direct result of government policy. Beslan was. And it wasn't a thousand, so get your facts straight.

It's you I feel sorry for.

Brende:

'Depraved' would only scratch the surface of your post....

Very sad news. The baby's uncle posts on Fark.com under the name "hammy." So we've been hearing a lot about this on Fark.

**hugs to hammy**

Originally posted by Brende
I'm sorry, I don't mean to sound insensitive, but I just don't care. There are better things to feel sorry about, like yourself. Really. One childs death compared to a thousand in Russia because of terrorists? Get your priorities straight.

Sacrifice one to save the many...

And if anyone cares, I do have children, so please, don't go there.

Wow, Deny Ignorance Indeed :shk: Why did you even bother posting

Aside from the above ramblings, Intestinal perforation sounds like the child had NEC or Necrotizing Enterocolitis. This can be a problem in premature infants especially if one has an episode of hypoxia.

When a person experiences a low oxygen or low blood flow state the body begins to shut down, "non-essential" components. The first to have its blood flow decreased in the gut, The last are the brain and heart. Thus weakened bacteria eat away at the colon and can cause the perforation described above. It can be fatal as seen above. If really bad, the child has to have most of thier intestines removed and then has a condition known as "short gut syndrome" SGS children require total IV nutrition which over time destroys thier liver and the eventualy require a liver/small bowel transplant which has a 10-20% success rate at this time.



[edit on 9/14/05 by FredT]

What possible hope would the baby have, knowing that its mother was braindead ? Obviously none, just a downward spiral with not much to look forward to. Even if it survived the baby would have been born premature, which isn't a way to live life.

Originally posted by websurfer
What possible hope would the baby have, knowing that its mother was braindead ? Obviously none, just a downward spiral with not much to look forward to. Even if it survived the baby would have been born premature, which isn't a way to live life.

Quite a bit actually. There have been cases documented in the medical literature of braindead patients keeping thier kids till almost term. Remember that 24 weeks is now the margianl age for a premature infant and 30 weeks has a good survival rate.

Being brain dead does not mean that the woman required an extraordinary amopunt of support to stay alive. Remember Terri Schiavo was not venataltor dependant yet lived for a long time. As long as basic support is provided such as nutrition and fluids, there is no reason that the child would not survive. However, somebody has to be in the "other" percentage that does not make it and unfortunetly this family has to deal with that.

At least the baby was given a chance at life.

Little FYI, the earliest a preemie has been known to survive is at 19 weeks. And this was like 30-35 years ago. I'll have to look that up...I can't remember where I saw that.

Originally posted by Amethyst
At least the baby was given a chance at life.

Little FYI, the earliest a preemie has been known to survive is at 19 weeks. And this was like 30-35 years ago. I'll have to look that up...I can't remember where I saw that.

Im not doubting you, but a 19 weeker 35 years ago??? The earliest I have seen is 21 and that child did not have full skin set, eyes fused shut etc. (The NICU transport specialist did not have a second nurse to go with them so they asked and I said yes. Last time I do that , I will stick to my 2 month to 18 year old transports!) And I have never run into anything in the literature beyond that either and none of those have lived. A 23 weeker is touch and go, 22's simply do not make it. I would also question the ethics involved in the recessutation of a 19 week infant

I guess I riled up the people with that one, and I apologize. I just wanted to comment that it was selfish to keep a dead person alive to give birth to a child with almost a zero chance of survival. What is worse, giving someone hope (then having that hope dashed), or just telling him the facts that there is a zero chance of survival.

Originally posted by Brende
I just wanted to comment that it was selfish to keep a dead person alive to give birth to a child with almost a zero chance of survival.

Still perpetuating that ignorance I see, did you bother to read FredT's posts? The baby did not have a zero chance of survival. Hell, why did we allow Ludwig van Beethoven to be born? He was, what, the seventh child to be born to a mother I believe was suffering from syphillis.

my sympathy goes out to the father , he probally had to make some unpalatable desecisions in the hope that his child would come out of this ok

sadly it didnt , but it was hardly a ` forlon hope ` - as fred has pointed out - a good % of babies born equally premature do survive with the latest care availiable

and bottom line - the persistant vegitative state of the mother would have little impact on the health of the child , correct ? or am i mistaken there ??

IMHO folk like brende are on a slipery slope - yes there are times when nothing you can do will save a patient , but using brendes " logic " you could argue ` close all hosiptals ` and abandon everyone to the fates

It boils down to my belief that we, as a society, are perpetuating the weak.
Why waste the resources on the weak, old, infirm, when you can use those same resources for those that actually have a chance. Why keep those alive who will die regardless of what happens. While this may seem brutal, it worked for the Spartans, till they were over run by vastly superior numbers. And, while my logic may be flawed to you, I know numerous people with the same beliefs as me. I am not saying that I am right, nor that you should agree with me. This is my personal opinions on this subject.
As for being ignorant, please understand that these are just opinions, and like ***holes, everyone has one.

Brende--That just smacks of Marxism.

Every innocent life should be given a chance. NO ONE is EVER "useless." Just because they may not be able to go out and get a job doesn't make them "useless eaters." I don't believe this nonsense they have to be useful to be permitted to live. Useful for what purpose, may I ask?

Why let the baby die with the mother instead of giving the child a chance? The child was given a chance. She lived five weeks. Still, she must have brought some measure of happiness to her father during that short time!

BTW, a poster on Fark.com, going by hammy, was the child's uncle.

Useful- Definition

While it is true that no one can judge what accomplishments a person can do with their life till it happens, certain assumptions can be made.

I dare not say what these accomplishments might be, for it is unimaginable. I am not here to say anyones life is not important, it is. There are 6 billion people on this planet, and everyone of them has a role that should be explored to the fullest extent. It is sad and regretable that the role might be to die before everything is fulfilled.

You're no longer digging a hole, now you're just extending your trench in ever decreasing circles.

The end result of the Spartan's policies was that they narrowed their gene pool, making it less likely that tactical geniuses would arise.

The simple fact is Eugenics don't work. The human race depends on variety, and doesn't your constitution guarantee you the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

I'm no pro-lifer, in fact I completely disagree with them, but if the parents (or parent) chooses life for their child, all the resources of the nation that stands behind that statement should be put at their disposal, it is, after all, nothing less than their constitutional right.

I just wanted to comment that it was selfish to keep a dead person alive to give birth to a child with almost a zero chance of survival.

A human mother is the perfect environment for a human child prebirth, that's not in question. The woman was not dead, she was brain dead, ie her body was still nourishing the child just as it should. As far as I can see, the fact that medical science can now support braindead people and can now save lives such as this- the baby - is amazing.

The child did not have zero chance of survival. She had an excellent chance of survival and leading a full life. Prematurity can cause many ailments and disabilities, but not all babies suffer from these and not all of these disabilities are severely limiting.

I wish the father and family well, and hope that they can come to terms with this second loss.