Preemie Baby saved because scissors were left on scale

page: 1
28
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
+22 more 
posted on Dec, 26 2012 @ 02:56 PM
link   
The UK apparently does not work to save preemies that weigh under a pound, as they are not deemed "viable". This baby was given treatment, mistakenly because scissors were left on the scale when she was weighed. It was discovered later, but she was already being taken care of. She is now home with her parents, and reportedly doing well.

She was born with a twin sister, who died a few weeks after birth... One must wonder if it was a result of her not being "viable", and thus not receiving any care.

This is what happens when government decides who gets care and who doesn't. Coming to a US state near you soon. Enjoy all you voted for in 2008 and 2012


www.theblaze.com...




posted on Dec, 26 2012 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by CalebRight14

The UK apparently does not work to save preemies that weigh under a pound, as they are not deemed "viable".


www.theblaze.com...


wtf are you serious ? Thats disgusting


My little sister was born premi and she weighed 650 grams or something .

Honestly cant believe thats how it works in the UK



posted on Dec, 26 2012 @ 03:51 PM
link   
The world is changing. It's not any one persons' fault (I am non-political)
Whether it's deliberate or design doesn't really matter because there's nothing we can do. This planet is in the process of consolidating.
Instead of pointing fingers come up with a viable option instead. After all, it takes nothing to complain but it takes everything to correct though.



posted on Dec, 26 2012 @ 03:54 PM
link   
Gosh it is SO expensive to save them that little, and a lot don't make it and have birth defects.

When medical care has a price tag, that's what happens.

Someone I know hurt their shoulder really bad. They do not have any insurance at all, and have just been trying to treat it at home. I sat at Christmas listening to his well to do sister telling him he really should get it checked out.

I hate that medical care has a price tag, but it does, and when you talk about really, really tiny preemies, it really does. You could probably save 1000 for the price of saving one.

What do you do?



posted on Dec, 26 2012 @ 03:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by CalebRight14

This is what happens when government decides who gets care and who doesn't. Coming to a US state near you soon. Enjoy all you voted for in 2008 and 2012


This is a exception not the rule. And its not the govermnet, it normaly hospital manages that make these desions like your health insurance makes simaliar desions.

In the UK thosuands of people who would be left to die due to lack of money in the USA get treatment. Hell in the USA I bet if mommy and dady didnt have much money that baby would have died as well or the parents would of ended up with crippling hopsital bills or in a poor quality medicare center.

O and guess what Ameriacans! We can pay to go to private hospitals too if we are not happy with the NHS!



posted on Dec, 26 2012 @ 04:00 PM
link   
reply to post by CalebRight14
 

My sentiment isn't the most popular to some, I admit, but this is what Government in Health looks like and there is no way around it. Our Government..Your Government.. ANY Government. It's not political here.

Government's set rules, policies and standards, right? It's what they do. It's honestly why we grudgingly admit we need them. Love/Hate to extremes at times. However, when Government controls something, they must set rules and procedures for EVERYTHING. After all, Government thinking goes, where would the line be drawn for "controlled" and "unregulated" behavior if they didn't set it? Of course.. Unregulated is personal judgement and freedom of action in other minds ...but Government isn't helped by that thinking. Not one bit.

And so...when Health is a Government operation, I don't think anyone is evil to say the child MUST be left to die hard because a scale says the weight is such and such.

I'll bet the bean counter who picked the number honestly believed that but for HIS help in defining it, people would surely kill babies who weighed more! So..in their minds? This was a very good thing to do........

Welcome to Health Care offered with all the compassion a state can supply. God help us all.



posted on Dec, 26 2012 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by CalebRight14
 



Welcome to Health Care offered with all the compassion a state can supply. God help us all.


If you dont like what the state provides why not just pay to go private like you would anyway?

What we do in the UK if we are not happy with the NHS, unless your poor....but then they would of got nothing in the USA anyway.
edit on 26-12-2012 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 26 2012 @ 04:08 PM
link   
I was saved by the NHS, I was a premmy baby and weighed about 1.5 pounds and was in an incubator for a good few months.
The Docs gave me less than 10% chance of living but due to the great care I received I lived.
Our system is not perfect but it is one of the best in the world and I would fight for the NHS because it is part of our culture and ingrained in us GREAT Britons.



posted on Dec, 26 2012 @ 04:09 PM
link   
reply to post by CalebRight14
 


This has nothing to do with government. BTW the UK health service is not RAN by the government, it is ran by the same people it would if it was private. It is simply funded by the government.

Only 10% of babies born under 1 lbs survive, and those that do usually have lifelong health problems. Even in the US babies born under one pound are often too unhealthy to save and are left to die.

Only 1.4% of babies are born under 3 lbs. So it's a very rare event.

www.chw.org...

So tiny that many doctors would have let the baby die: meet Melinda Star Guido, 9.5 ounces at birth

So this has nothing to do with the health service being nationalized.



posted on Dec, 26 2012 @ 04:14 PM
link   
Yeah.... God forbid that the US should have the same type of health care as the UK.

Infant mortality rates: (death per 1,000 births)

US: 6.0
UK 4.56

...there you go.

...and I think the story in the OP is BS.



posted on Dec, 26 2012 @ 04:22 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


So according to your statistics, 1.4 children out of a hundred are born under 3 pounds. Not very rare at all. In fact it is similar to the birth control pill failure rate.

I think it should be up to the parents as to if children under a pound should be "saved". Since they are the ones that would have to contend with possible complications. I think most would say yes, but at least then the ball is in their court.



posted on Dec, 26 2012 @ 04:24 PM
link   
reply to post by crazyewok
 


Here at the local kids hospital I'm told the standard is "24 weeks" - if your baby wasn't carried at least 24 weeks the infant is not considered viable. On the other hand, full term babies with serious multi-million dollar care issues like serious birth defects and genetic abnormalities are routinely saved based on parental consent. In the event a child requires constant hospitalization I understand that a hospital "board" will determine how much care is given.

It doesn't have anything to do with the government side of health care as much as the ongoing cost of services and the parent's ability to pay - or their insurance company's limits. Quality of life issues for the infant are one of the primary aspects of discussion, but the level and length of care (COSTS) seem to drive the decisions as well.

ganjoa



posted on Dec, 26 2012 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by crazyewok

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by CalebRight14
 



Welcome to Health Care offered with all the compassion a state can supply. God help us all.


If you dont like what the state provides why not just pay to go private like you would anyway?

What we do in the UK if we are not happy with the NHS, unless your poor....but then they would of got nothing in the USA anyway.
edit on 26-12-2012 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)

Wow.. Where do I begin? If I don't like it...my problem? No... if I don't like it, I adjust my life's course to go somewhere I can DO something ABOUT it. Which, I am doing...by the way. Change takes time..and even getting to a position to help make it come takes time. When I'm not left to die cold and alone because I didn't weigh enough, at least I was "granted" the "gift" of having that time.

Now I don't believe you are familiar ..at almost any level...with American Medicine as it's practiced at the moment. It may change, and many expect it to..but right now? Poor or Rich makes no difference in basic levels of respect and treatment to save life here. Oh, to go to extraordinary means? Hell yeah money talks. Need cancer therapy? Need transplants? You're probably best to make life what you can while you have some left. TRUE on that.

Basic life saving and life maintenance? Well, the college I go to is more about a certain Health program than anything ELSE they offer...funding, resources.. etc. It means medical is all over ...and that is above the fact my city has TWO Tier 1 regional trauma centers with enough support to leave almost nothing without an office to treat it here.

Living here? I'm surrounded and know many in medicine and I don't know ANY who would stand for allowing a baby to be "deeemed non-viable" and left to die....outside of an abortion procedure and this thread isn't about that of course. Of course...I also know MANY MANY people with CNA to MD after their name who are pulling the plug and leaving medicine entirely too...and this is why. Things LIKE this.



posted on Dec, 26 2012 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by elouina
So according to your statistics, 1.4 children out of a hundred are born under 3 pounds. Not very rare at all. In fact it is similar to the birth control pill failure rate.


No that would be 1.4% of all babies born.


I think it should be up to the parents as to if children under a pound should be "saved". Since they are the ones that would have to contend with possible complications. I think most would say yes, but at least then the ball is in their court.


Parents make emotional decisions. If parents were allowed to make the decision then we would be overwhelmed with unhealthy babies. Stop thinking emotionally, babies are a dime a dozen, we can make more.



posted on Dec, 26 2012 @ 04:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000

Wow.. Where do I begin? If I don't like it...my problem? No... if I don't like it, I adjust my life's course to go somewhere I can DO something ABOUT it. Which, I am doing...by the way. Change takes time..and even getting to a position to help make it come takes time. When I'm not left to die cold and alone because I didn't weigh enough, at least I was "granted" the "gift" of having that time.


Not sure on your point here.

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
Now I don't believe you are familiar ..at almost any level...with American Medicine as it's practiced at the moment. It may change, and many expect it to..but right now? Poor or Rich makes no difference in basic levels of respect and treatment to save life here.

I accept I am no epert on this but from what freinds who live in USA say, ita ll depends on were you live. And yeah basic A&E stuff and treatment of basic infections yeah you can get and iff lucky free, but I know a few who have got lumbled with huge bills and had to sell there house ect.




Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
Oh, to go to extraordinary means? Hell yeah money talks. Need cancer therapy? Need transplants? You're probably best to make life what you can while you have some left. TRUE on that.

You see this is why we love our NHS because no matter how poor you will get this. My Aunt has lived with controled bone cancer with one of these new and very expensive cancer drugs. And I know a working class dude who got a heart transplant.


Originally posted by Wrabbit2000

Basic life saving and life maintenance? Well, the college I go to is more about a certain Health program than anything ELSE they offer...funding, resources.. etc. It means medical is all over ...and that is above the fact my city has TWO Tier 1 regional trauma centers with enough support to leave almost nothing without an office to treat it here.

Not sure on your point? I live near 2 regional A&E centers two in the UK.


Originally posted by Wrabbit2000

Living here? I'm surrounded and know many in medicine and I don't know ANY who would stand for allowing a baby to be "deeemed non-viable" and left to die....outside of an abortion procedure and this thread isn't about that of course. Of course...I also know MANY MANY people with CNA to MD after their name who are pulling the plug and leaving medicine entirely too...and this is why. Things LIKE this.


I agree its crap descion but idoits that think they know best will make them be it doctors, hospital managers and health insurers.

But this is the exception with the NHS not the rule.



posted on Dec, 26 2012 @ 06:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by elouina
So according to your statistics, 1.4 children out of a hundred are born under 3 pounds. Not very rare at all. In fact it is similar to the birth control pill failure rate.


No that would be 1.4% of all babies born.


I think it should be up to the parents as to if children under a pound should be "saved". Since they are the ones that would have to contend with possible complications. I think most would say yes, but at least then the ball is in their court.


Parents make emotional decisions. If parents were allowed to make the decision then we would be overwhelmed with unhealthy babies. Stop thinking emotionally, babies are a dime a dozen, we can make more.



First to address the 1.4 % business. Oh my.... Same thing, just a different way of showing it....

Human emotions are a normal part of life and can't be avoided in a healthy person. For example, the emotions of compassion and empathy, are what keeps folks from shooting defenseless children or firemen.

And parents in my area DO get a choice.
edit on 26-12-2012 by elouina because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 26 2012 @ 06:43 PM
link   
reply to post by crazyewok
 

Okay... I'll bet I got a little too touchy. It's getting that way just recently with being told by international people how evil, bad, filthy, violent, backwards and generally undesirable my nation is ...in pretty much every form.
Forgive me..as the difference in culture really would seem to be the difference this time.

Now you point out a couple things in your first message and reply about your own NHS and how it works for you. In all honesty I can't debate you to the point of saying your system, as a whole, is wrong ...I can't even bring up examples of evil things that happen in your system...without linking for support at the same time....or replying to someone who did. After all.. I don't live under that system and never have.

Likewise, you're as selectively informed of our system as I am yours. That is to say, beyond time spent learning on the side, we know anecdotes from friends, family or the media. Not a way to know a system...


Specific to reply? Your system, as you've described it, is great for poor because they can get service and options it does realistically take money or good insurance to get here. True on that. The thread here highlights the flip side of that tho.........Your folks seem to get great care in some areas, but if 'deemed' by a central Government not to be worthy or a good fit for the care? Well..... Live well for whatever you have left.

Same here..for BIG STUFF. That's the difference. People don't get left in hallways to die in the American system. We don't dehydrate our patients to let them die "humanely" in a way ONLY medical staff could ever see as humane in any form. (several threads on ATS describing those "protocols" in detail..is my reference) and babies don't get left to "expire" or....die hard, as I'll rightly put it...because a scale read out didn't have the right numbers.

(^^^^ And if those things DO HAPPEN as some did at some county Hospitals before everything went 100% for-profit...then heads roll and people are held to account. As I understand the NHS..You MAY get an apology, but not likely even that?)



posted on Dec, 26 2012 @ 06:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by elouina

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by elouina
So according to your statistics, 1.4 children out of a hundred are born under 3 pounds. Not very rare at all. In fact it is similar to the birth control pill failure rate.


No that would be 1.4% of all babies born.

>snip<


First to address the 1.4 % business. Oh my.... Same thing, just a different way of showing it....

>snip<


"Oh my" is right. 1.4% means, literally, 1.4 per cent (as in "out of 100").
Can be extrapolated to mean 14 out of 1000, 14000 out of 1,000,000, et cetera.

Makes one wonder what people were doing in math class....



posted on Dec, 27 2012 @ 07:44 AM
link   
As has been stated, UK patients DO have the ability to have private healthcare if they choose. The difference is that the NHS offers such a high quality of care to EVERYONE that few bother with it.

There are circumstances that dictate that chances of survival are slim to non existant. The survival of a child that is born below a certain weight or before a certain gestation will have such a reduced chance of survival due to inadequate lung maturity that it cannot be justified pumping the vast amount of resources into an almost certainly futile cause, particularly when this money comes from a finite pot. The truth is that no matter how much money or resources you throw at the treatment of these children, chances are that they will die. This child, though alive, is an exception to the rule. I guarantee that in the US if the child were born to parents without adequate health insurance the treatment would be the same.

All medicine requires a degree of quantifiably dictated numbers to function. For example there have been a very few cases of individuals who have 'coned' who have made a recovery (this is where some of the brain is forced out of the skull into the spinal space due to raised intracranial pressure, resulting in brainstem death). However in both the UK and US it is agreed that this diagnosis is a death sentence and is used as a tool when deciding to remove life support. Just because very few people have survived this does that mean that all available resources should be pumped into trying to cure this condition, even though there is a >99% chance that this individual will die?

Emotion does have a place, but sometimes a decision has to be made.



posted on Dec, 27 2012 @ 07:55 AM
link   
reply to post by PaddyInf
 


I agree the sad fact is Doctors have to make life or death choices, they only have enough resources to do so much.
But our NHS still saved me when I was a babe and I think the OP is just trying to bash our NHS.
Sad fact is if you look at the stats the US has a horrid healthcare system and If they could just get over the fact that we do look after everyone (rich or poor) but because it is socialized medicine they thing socialized = commie.
Oh and before you find other one off storys about the eldery not getting care let me tell you that I have taken old dears (mid 90's) to hospital many times and I have sometimes thought to myself "Oh no I think old Flo isn't going to come back" and the staff and doctors in the NHS have treated them all with the same respect and care as anyone else.
Like I have said the NHS is far from perfect but I would fight for it because as the founder of the NHS said

The collective principle asserts that... no society can legitimately call itself civilised if a sick person is denied medical aid because of lack of means.
—Aneurin Bevan.

Well said and I agree with him.





new topics

top topics



 
28
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join