Preemie Baby saved because scissors were left on scale, page 2

Pages: << 1 2 3 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 28 times

reply posted on 27-12-2012 @ 08:00 AM by stumason

Originally posted by crazyewok
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!

^^^ This...

Nicely said chap, nicely said... It would have been a clinical decision made by the consultant, if it ever happens. I can find many stories of babies who were born at 30+ weeks and survived on the NHS.

My own brother was born 7 weeks early, weighed bugger all and had renal failure, the NHS saved him. In fact, Guys & St Thomas in London is the most advanced hospital in the world for renal care.

At least we have a choice and don't have worry about having to sell our homes if we get seriously ill. I get private care through my employer (at no charge to my gross) as well as access to the NHS...

reply posted on 27-12-2012 @ 08:58 AM by camaro68ss

reply to post by CalebRight14

Its a great store, thanks for sharing. all life should be given a chance to live.

reply posted on 27-12-2012 @ 11:39 AM by justsaying

reply to post by CalebRight14

I am a new graduate nurse and have worked in hospitals for several years, as an extern, as a student and as a nursing assistant. There is a law in the US called EMTALA that requires hospitals to provide emergency treatment to anyone in need of emergency medical services regardless of ability to pay. No one is denied medical treatment regardless of insurance status. Patients with no insurance are given the same emergency medicines, care and treatment as the patients that have medical insurance. This includes premies. My daughter works in a NICU in a level 1 trauma children's hospital and no baby is ever denied treatment regardless of lack of insurance. All babies, regardless of how hopeless they are, are given every possible medical intervention (IV's, respiratory treatments/intubation, glucose or whatever they need). I don't know what laws the British hospitals have to work under or what their hospital policies are. But here in the US, no patient is allowed to die unless the patient is terminal and the patient or family requests DNR (do not resuscitate) and the patient is allowed to die.

reply posted on 27-12-2012 @ 12:10 PM by crazyewok

Originally posted by justsaying
reply to post by CalebRight14

I am a new graduate nurse and have worked in hospitals for several years, as an extern, as a student and as a nursing assistant. There is a law in the US called EMTALA that requires hospitals to provide emergency treatment to anyone in need of emergency medical services regardless of ability to pay. No one is denied medical treatment regardless of insurance status. Patients with no insurance are given the same emergency medicines, care and treatment as the patients that have medical insurance. This includes premies. My daughter works in a NICU in a level 1 trauma children's hospital and no baby is ever denied treatment regardless of lack of insurance. All babies, regardless of how hopeless they are, are given every possible medical intervention (IV's, respiratory treatments/intubation, glucose or whatever they need). I don't know what laws the British hospitals have to work under or what their hospital policies are. But here in the US, no patient is allowed to die unless the patient is terminal and the patient or family requests DNR (do not resuscitate) and the patient is allowed to die.

So if a desitue person without insurance or any means to pay needs a expensive cancer drug they will get it for free?

Or if they need s expensive and complicated back surgery again will they get it free?

edit on 27-12-2012 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 27-12-2012 @ 12:16 PM by PaddyInf

Originally posted by justsaying

I am a new graduate nurse and have worked in hospitals for several years, as an extern, as a student and as a nursing assistant. There is a law in the US called EMTALA that requires hospitals to provide emergency treatment to anyone in need of emergency medical services regardless of ability to pay. No one is denied medical treatment regardless of insurance status. Patients with no insurance are given the same emergency medicines, care and treatment as the patients that have medical insurance. This includes premies.

You state that no one is denied medical treatment regardless of insurance status, but this only carries to emergency treatment. The NHS delivers high level treatment of ALL kinds, emergency and otherwise, to all people, funded by the tax payer from cradle to grave.

My daughter works in a NICU in a level 1 trauma children's hospital and no baby is ever denied treatment regardless of lack of insurance. All babies, regardless of how hopeless they are, are given every possible medical intervention (IV's, respiratory treatments/intubation, glucose or whatever they need). I don't know what laws the British hospitals have to work under or what their hospital policies are. But here in the US, no patient is allowed to die unless the patient is terminal and the patient or family requests DNR (do not resuscitate) and the patient is allowed to die.

All patients are given the maximum care that is possible in the NHS no matter what. The simple fact is though that even in the US there are set evidence-based guidelines that state the most appropriate actions to be taken in any given clinical scenario. The guidelines used by the NHS trust in question are usually based on the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) research, which is taken from research from all over the World. Clinical practitioners in the US use similar guidelines and protocols. Indeed when I was practicing a child was considered not to be viable prior to 26 weeks (as opposed to 24 weeks now). Guidelines and protocols change and are updated as medical interventions and research improves.

I was a nurse in an A&E (ED) in Northern Ireland prior to joining the Army. Admittedly I haven't been practicing for several years, but things haven't changed that much. We don't just let people die. The babies in question are given adequate care to maintain life less actual full clinical intervention such as Paediatric Advanced Life Support. Unfortunately the majority of time the children die. This is not because they are not cared for, it is because their body is not mature enough to support life outside the womb. They aren't just stuck on a scale and thrown in a bucket if the 'magic number' isn't reached.

The hard-working men and women of the NHS do everything they can to give the best clinical outcome with the resources that are available. They give treatments and follow-up care on a daily basis free of charge that all but the most wealthy in the US could only dream of.

reply posted on 27-12-2012 @ 01:26 PM by justsaying

reply to post by crazyewok

Let me clarify that my statement to the OP is based on her assumptions about denied emergency care to a premie in a british hospital will be carried over to all US hospitals.

To answer your question, maybe yes and maybe no, this does not fall under the provisions of the EMTALA law but will fall on the shoulders of community care in your area....donated hospital services, charities, and churches to name a few organizatons that get involved in their community to provide these costly services to those who can't afford it.

reply posted on 27-12-2012 @ 01:28 PM by justsaying

reply to post by PaddyInf

What is the NHS?

I am glad Ireland provides for their people, this is the way it should be.

reply posted on 27-12-2012 @ 01:30 PM by boymonkey74

reply to post by justsaying

The UK's Nation Health Service.....

reply posted on 27-12-2012 @ 01:33 PM by stumason

reply to post by justsaying

Paddy is British, by the way.

He is talking about the British NHS...

reply posted on 27-12-2012 @ 01:49 PM by boymonkey74

Hey OP instead of trying to have a dig at the NHS lets have a look at your countries failings...
Infant mortality rate is 7 die per 1000 that is 29th in the world .
www.protectpatientsblog.com...

What about the women giving birth and the chance they will die?

www.time.com...

Have a child in America and you are 5 times more likely to die while giving birth than someone in Greece.

Sort your own healthcare out and come back to us ok.

reply posted on 27-12-2012 @ 02:09 PM by crazyewok

This is what amuses me with the USA

You have the greatest Military on Earth yes.

You are a super power yes.

But when it comes to freendom, healthcare and social issues your country is falling and is certainy not number 1.

As much as you want to beleive. Your country is no longer the best country to live in.

You can cling to your fantasy of the American dream, put your finger in your ears and sing the national athem and throw your indroctrinated slogans like "land of the free" and "liberty and Democray" round as much as you like and mean while your country will fall apart.

reply posted on 27-12-2012 @ 04:20 PM by ANOK

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

OK my math sucks, you've found my weakness lol. But 1.4 weighing under 3lbs means even less are born under one lbs, so yes it is a pretty low number.

About 7500 are born a year under 1 lb in the US and about 10% of them survive.

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.

True, but if you let your emotions rule your thinking you do not think logically.

And parents in my area DO get a choice.

OK.

You do realise that you are also putting down a country that is not as wealthy as yours, and yet manage to provide better health care. Bloody snobs.

reply posted on 27-12-2012 @ 06:22 PM by justsaying

reply to post by crazyewok

Sorry I do not mean to derail this thread but I just want to respond to this one comment.

I really don't know many americans that think the US is the best country on earth. Far from it. Most of us feel we are done for and the way our country is set up with a two party system constantly at war with each other will continue to keep us divided with a net result of we are all screwed. I have traveled to other countries and I see how much better the way of life is for those residents of those countries. Most of us here are trying to make a difference but it is much like spinning your wheels in the mud, so to speak. My only wish is that every american would have health care coverage including mental health care. At least that would be a start.

reply posted on 27-12-2012 @ 06:33 PM by boymonkey74

reply to post by justsaying

I wish that for all of humanity but greed and the "I'm all right Jack screw you" attitude seems to be pretty high on some peoples lists.

reply posted on 27-12-2012 @ 08:43 PM by ziplock9000

reply to post by CalebRight14

From The Sun..

lol

reply posted on 27-12-2012 @ 09:34 PM by jonnywhite

reply to post by CalebRight14

The problem is that it's human nature for mothers to keep babies, no matter what. But if human nature starts to work against us, what then? It's not butterflies and rainbows.

Either people govern themselves or somebody else does. Same deal with criminals. If they can't play by the rules then somebody else is going to have to enforce them.

I'm not supporting tyranny. Merely stating that some things cannot just be placed on trust alone. There has to be a standard otherwise every crazy person in the world could let loose.

The tricky part is determining what the rules are and who sets them. Because if the population isn't being represented in the rule-making then you essentially have tyranny.

My opinion is that a premature baby is not unviable. I myself was premature. I was 3 lbs 2 ounces. But lets take this to the extremes and start imagining babies that're 3-8 ounces. What then? Do we try to save them or do we just put the tools away and shut the machines off and let it die? At some point, if nobody sets rules, we're going to waste $$$ and time on hopeless cases. I know this fires up people's emotions, but rules have to be set or nothing will be affordable. And if nothing is affordable then the 3-8 ounce babies are going to die anyway because there're no machines to save them.

Threads like this appeal to people's emotions, but there's a cold hard reality too. If we don't step in and control the cold hard reality then nature will, and nature will make it very painful. Next time you break a leg or fall 30 feet, see how well you do without hospitals. I know that all the rules and roads and walls can make this life overbearing sometimes, but they're there for a reason. If you can't understand what I'm saying then just imagine a world without police, without oversight, without a standing military, without laws, and now ask yourself one question: Am I feeling lucky? Well, am I?

I don't want anybody to break a leg or fall 30 feet. Just explaining something.

edit on 27-12-2012 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 28-12-2012 @ 05:51 AM by dogstar23

Originally posted by CalebRight14

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...

I didn't research at all to find out if it's true, but in the UK, there are private insurers, and self-pay is allowed as well. The government decides what will be covered under the national healthcare system. Individuals, if they can afford it, are 100% free to hold private insurance, or make payment arrangements themselves. The baby could have been saved either way, but, at least according to the story, the parents chose not to, since it wouldn't be covered under their national insurance.

ETA: after a few seconds searching, I think your source is bunk, and little more than a scare tactic against taxpayer-funded healtchcare for all. Here's just one example that seems to indicate this story is a lie, at best: www.telegraph.co.uk...

edit on 12/28/2012 by dogstar23 because: found evidence this is a hoax

reply posted on 28-12-2012 @ 06:03 AM by korathin

Originally posted by CalebRight14

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...

This story is a perfect reminder of why atheists, sociopaths and psychopaths should not be allowed to work in government or hold elected office as they are not morally capable enough to fulfill those roles.

reply posted on 28-12-2012 @ 06:52 AM by cosmicexplorer

Sounds like Sparta!
...

reply posted on 28-12-2012 @ 07:11 AM by OtherSideOfTheCoin

Let me start by saying this story is amazing

That said the OP’s statements are rubbish.

The odds of a child under a pound surviving are very low, the “one pound law” is not a “law” it’s more of a guideline. I use guidelines all the time this one will probably say something along the lines of “if the infant is under a pound research shows that this is inconsistent with life” it will not say “if the infant is under a pound do nothing”. It is at the discretion of the medical team how best to deal with the situation; if the child has a pulse then they are going to do everything to save the child’s life as a guideline is only ever a guideline.

It’s probably like CPR, European guidelines always say a ratio of 30:2 compressions to breaths however sometimes I go with 10:1 depending on the nature of the resuscitation. And at times we just stop with resuscitation because it is obvious that there will be no quality of life following ages of hypoxic brain. This is much the same, the complications that a child premature weighing under a pound is really quite extreme so this is a big consideration when deciding if it is worth attempting resuscitation.

This just so the OP knows, has nothing to do with government, David Cameron does not tell the doctor’s when to stop, research and experience does it has very little to do with government.

Pages: << 1 2 3 >> ^^TOP^^