"Doctors told me it was against the rules to save my baby"UK

\\OFF-TOPIC// conversations about everything that has nothing to do with Conquer Club.

Moderator: Community Team

Forum rules
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.
User avatar
GabonX
Posts: 899
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2006 11:38 am
Gender: Male
Contact:

"Doctors told me it was against the rules to save my baby"UK

Post by GabonX »

Image
Image
Doctors left a premature baby to die because he was born two days too early, his devastated mother claimed yesterday.

Sarah Capewell begged them to save her tiny son, who was born just 21 weeks and five days into her pregnancy - almost four months early.

They ignored her pleas and allegedly told her they were following national guidelines that babies born before 22 weeks should not be given medical treatment.

Miss Capewell, 23, said doctors refused to even see her son Jayden, who lived for almost two hours without any medical support.

She said he was breathing unaided, had a strong heartbeat and was even moving his arms and legs, but medics refused to admit him to a special care baby unit.

Miss Capewell is now fighting for a review of the medical guidelines.

Medics allegedly told her that they would have tried to save the baby if he had been born two days later, at 22 weeks.

In fact, the medical guidelines for Health Service hospitals state that babies should not be given intensive care if they are born at less than 23 weeks.

The guidance, drawn up by the Nuffield Council, is not compulsory but advises doctors that medical intervention for very premature children is not in the best interests of the baby, and is not 'standard practice'.

James Paget Hospital in Norfolk refused to comment on the case but said it was not responsible for setting the guidelines relating to premature births.

A trust spokesman said: 'Like other acute hospitals, we follow national guidance from the British Association of Perinatal Medicine regarding premature births.'

Miss Capewell, who has had five miscarriages, said the guidelines had robbed her son of a chance of life.

She said: 'When he was born, he put out his arms and legs and pushed himself over.

A midwife said he was breathing and had a strong heartbeat, and described him as a "little fighter".

I kept asking for the doctors but the midwife said, "They won't come and help, sweetie. Make the best of the time you have with him".'

She cuddled her child and took precious photos of him, but he died in her arms less than two hours after his birth.

Miss Capewell, who has a five-year-old daughter Jodie, went into labour in October last year at 21 weeks and four days after suffering problems during her pregnancy.

She said she was told that because she had not reached 22 weeks, she was not allowed injections to try to stop the labour, or a steroid injection to help to strengthen her baby's lungs.

Instead, doctors told her to treat the labour as a miscarriage, not a birth, and to expect her baby to be born with serious deformities or even to be still-born.

She told how she begged one paediatrician, 'You have got to help', only for the man to respond: 'No we don't.'


As her contractions continued, a chaplain arrived at her bedside to discuss bereavement and planning a funeral, she claims.

She said: 'I was sitting there, reading this leaflet about planning a funeral and thinking, this is my baby, he isn't even born yet, let alone dead.'

After his death she even had to argue with hospital officials for her right to receive birth and death certificates, which meant she could give her son a proper funeral.

She was shocked to discover that another child, born in the U.S. at 21 weeks and six days into her mother's pregnancy, had survived.


Amillia Taylor was born in Florida in 2006 and celebrated her second birthday last October. She is the youngest premature baby to survive.

Miss Capewell said: 'I could not believe that one little girl, Amillia Taylor, is perfectly healthy after being born in Florida in 2006 at 21 weeks and six days.

'Thousands of women have experienced this. The doctors say the babies won't survive but how do they know if they are not giving them a chance?'

Miss Capewell has won the support of Labour MP Tony Wright, who has backed her call for a review of the medical guidelines. He said: 'When a woman wants to give the best chance to her baby, they should surely be afforded that opportunity.'
What the medical guidelines say...

Guidance limiting care of the most premature babies provoked outrage when it was published three years ago.

Experts on medical ethics advised doctors not to resuscitate babies born before 23 weeks in the womb, stating that it was not in the child's 'best interests'.

The guidelines said: 'If gestational age is certain and less than 23+0 (i.e at 22 weeks) it would be considered in the best interests of the baby, and standard practice, for resuscitation not to be carried out.'

Medical intervention would be given for a child born between 22 and 23 weeks only if the parents requested it and only after discussion about likely outcomes.

The rules were endorsed by the British Association of Perinatal Medicine and are followed by NHS hospitals.

The association said they were not meant to be a 'set of instructions', but doctors regard them as the best available advice on the treatment of premature babies.

More than 80,000 babies are born prematurely in Britain every year, and of those some 40,000 need to be treated in intensive care.

The NHS spends an estimated £1 billion a year on their care.

But while survival rates for those born after 24 weeks in the womb have risen significantly, the rates for those born earlier have barely changed, despite advances in medicine and technology.

Medical experts say babies born before 23 weeks are simply too under-developed to survive, and that to use aggressive treatment methods would only prolong their suffering, or inflict pain.

The guidelines were drawn up by the Nuffield Council on Bioethics after a two-year inquiry which took evidence from doctors, nurses and religious leaders.

But weeks before they were published in 2006, a child was born in the U.S. which proved a baby could survive at earlier than 22 weeks if it was given medical treatment.

Amillia Taylor was born in Florida on October 24, 2006, after just 21 weeks and six days in the womb. She celebrated her second birthday last year.

Doctors believed she was a week older and so gave her intensive care, but later admitted she would not have received treatment if they had known her true age.

Her birth also coincided with the debate in Britain over whether the abortion limit should be reduced.

Some argued that if a baby could survive at 22 weeks then the time limit on abortions should be reduced.

The argument, which was lost in Parliament, followed a cut to the time limit in 1990 when politicians reduced it from 28 weeks to 24 weeks, in line with scientific evidence that foetuses could survive outside the womb at a younger age.

However, experts say cases like Amillia Taylor's are rare, and can raise false expectations about survival rates.

Studies show that only 1 per cent of babies born before 23 weeks survive, and many suffer serious disabilities.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... limit.html
Spazz Arcane wrote:If birds could swim and fish could fly I would awaken in the morning to the sturgeons cry. If fish could fly and birds could swim I'd still use worms to fish for them.
saxitoxin wrote:I'm on Team GabonX
User avatar
GabonX
Posts: 899
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2006 11:38 am
Gender: Male
Contact:

Re: "Doctors told me it was against the rules to save my baby"UK

Post by GabonX »

I wonder if the infant mortality rate in the UK excludes premature births...
Spazz Arcane wrote:If birds could swim and fish could fly I would awaken in the morning to the sturgeons cry. If fish could fly and birds could swim I'd still use worms to fish for them.
saxitoxin wrote:I'm on Team GabonX
User avatar
jay_a2j
Posts: 4293
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2006 2:22 am
Location: In the center of the R3VOJUTION!

Re: "Doctors told me it was against the rules to save my baby"UK

Post by jay_a2j »

Unbelievable. :shock:
THE DEBATE IS OVER...
PLAYER57832 wrote:Too many of those who claim they don't believe global warming are really "end-timer" Christians.

JESUS SAVES!!!
User avatar
Titanic
Posts: 1558
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2007 12:58 pm
Location: Northampton, UK

Re: "Doctors told me it was against the rules to save my baby"UK

Post by Titanic »

GabonX wrote:I wonder if the infant mortality rate in the UK excludes premature births...


No idea, but we'll still have a rate a hell of a lot better then yours.

Btw, notice how all your posts criticising the NHS comes from the Daily Mail? Its the paper equivalent of Fox News, a horrible media outlet.

You judge a healthcare system not by looking at individual cases or highlighting individual people, but by looking at the system as a whole, in which case Europe's sytems kick the USA's systems arse.
User avatar
GabonX
Posts: 899
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2006 11:38 am
Gender: Male
Contact:

Re: "Doctors told me it was against the rules to save my baby"UK

Post by GabonX »

Titanic wrote:
GabonX wrote:I wonder if the infant mortality rate in the UK excludes premature births...


No idea, but we'll still have a rate a hell of a lot better then yours.

Btw, notice how all your posts criticising the NHS comes from the Daily Mail? Its the paper equivalent of Fox News, a horrible media outlet.

You judge a healthcare system not by looking at individual cases or highlighting individual people, but by looking at the system as a whole, in which case Europe's sytems kick the USA's systems arse.

Not all of my articles come from the same source. You're grasping for straws with that one :roll:

Individual cases can highlight flaws in a given system. In all frankness, I question the legitimacy of statistics which are critical of the United States as many of them are given by organizations which have a vested interest in promoting their own socialized health care systems. Luns had provided a number of links which explain how a number of these statistics are flat out wrong.

The question of whether or not the UK includes premature births on it's infant mortality rate is very relevant in this regard.
Spazz Arcane wrote:If birds could swim and fish could fly I would awaken in the morning to the sturgeons cry. If fish could fly and birds could swim I'd still use worms to fish for them.
saxitoxin wrote:I'm on Team GabonX
User avatar
john9blue
Posts: 1268
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2007 7:18 pm
Gender: Male
Location: FlutterChi-town

Re: "Doctors told me it was against the rules to save my baby"UK

Post by john9blue »

Titanic wrote:No idea, but we'll still have a rate a hell of a lot better then yours.

Btw, notice how all your posts criticising the NHS comes from the Daily Mail? Its the paper equivalent of Fox News, a horrible media outlet.

You judge a healthcare system not by looking at individual cases or highlighting individual people, but by looking at the system as a whole, in which case Europe's sytems kick the USA's systems arse.


Bloody good post, old chap!

Brits...

Good job denying facts because of their source. Also, the thing this woman is fighting against IS the system as a whole. She wants to change the rules themselves. She's not looking for money or anything, at least not that I'm aware of. :roll:



EDIT: Gabon pretty much said what I did except nicer. :lol:
natty_dread wrote:Do ponies have sex?
Army of GOD wrote:the term heterosexual is offensive. I prefer to be called "normal"
(proud member of the Occasionally Wrongly Banned)
User avatar
GabonX
Posts: 899
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2006 11:38 am
Gender: Male
Contact:

Re: "Doctors told me it was against the rules to save my baby"UK

Post by GabonX »

This story also lends credibility to the claims that "Death Panels" may arise as a result of socialized health care as we see that they do in fact exist in the UK for the new born.
Spazz Arcane wrote:If birds could swim and fish could fly I would awaken in the morning to the sturgeons cry. If fish could fly and birds could swim I'd still use worms to fish for them.
saxitoxin wrote:I'm on Team GabonX
User avatar
captainwalrus
Posts: 1018
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2007 3:19 pm
Location: Finnmark

Re: "Doctors told me it was against the rules to save my baby"UK

Post by captainwalrus »

GabonX wrote:This story also lends credibility to the claims that "Death Panels" may arise as a result of socialized health care as we see that they do in fact exist in the UK for the new born.

But there are no such things in the current US bill...
~ CaptainWalrus
User avatar
GabonX
Posts: 899
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2006 11:38 am
Gender: Male
Contact:

Re: "Doctors told me it was against the rules to save my baby"UK

Post by GabonX »

captainwalrus wrote:
GabonX wrote:This story also lends credibility to the claims that "Death Panels" may arise as a result of socialized health care as we see that they do in fact exist in the UK for the new born.

But there are no such things in the current US bill...

I doubt that such a thing is specifically outlined in the UK code either, but if the government gets into the business of rationing health care it may very well amount to such practice.

This is what we are concerned about and our concerns are legitimate.
Spazz Arcane wrote:If birds could swim and fish could fly I would awaken in the morning to the sturgeons cry. If fish could fly and birds could swim I'd still use worms to fish for them.
saxitoxin wrote:I'm on Team GabonX
User avatar
Snorri1234
Posts: 3438
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2007 12:52 pm
Location: Right in the middle of a fucking reptile zoo.
Contact:

Re: "Doctors told me it was against the rules to save my baby"UK

Post by Snorri1234 »

GabonX wrote:I wonder if the infant mortality rate in the UK excludes premature births...


Why would it?
"Some motherfuckers are always trying to ice skate uphill."

Duane: You know what they say about love and war.
Tim: Yes, one involves a lot of physical and psychological pain, and the other one's war.
AlgyTaylor
Posts: 433
Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2007 3:35 pm
Location: Liverpool, UK

Re: "Doctors told me it was against the rules to save my baby"UK

Post by AlgyTaylor »

Titanic wrote:
GabonX wrote:I wonder if the infant mortality rate in the UK excludes premature births...


No idea, but we'll still have a rate a hell of a lot better then yours.

Btw, notice how all your posts criticising the NHS comes from the Daily Mail? Its the paper equivalent of Fox News, a horrible media outlet.

You judge a healthcare system not by looking at individual cases or highlighting individual people, but by looking at the system as a whole, in which case Europe's sytems kick the USA's systems arse.

Yeah, totally. As I've said before, the NHS isn't' perfect ... but it is very, very good. Guess it's up to the yanks whether they take on board things that have worked incredibly well in the UK/EU or not ... but picking out odd cases, from the Daily Mail, is laughable. They're hardly an unbiased source ...
User avatar
comic boy
Posts: 1738
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2007 3:54 pm
Location: London

Re: "Doctors told me it was against the rules to save my baby"UK

Post by comic boy »

Are there not guidelines in the USA for instances such as this, does standard healthcare insurance cover all degrees of premature birth. What would the premium be to cover a patient with a history of 5 miscarriages for treatment that is almost certain to lead to the death or major disability of the baby, in the case of disability who would then be liable for ongoing medical care ?
Im a TOFU miSfit
AlgyTaylor
Posts: 433
Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2007 3:35 pm
Location: Liverpool, UK

Re: "Doctors told me it was against the rules to save my baby"UK

Post by AlgyTaylor »

Besides which - the baby was 21 weeks ... even if it did survive being born prematurely, it almost certainly wouldn't have lead a life worth living.

Sorry, but a baby born that early without the NHS would die. In private care, it might survive. If it did survive, it'd almost certainly be brain damaged. I'm not saying for one minute that people who aren't grade A students don't deserve healthcare, but there comes a point where you need to say - if the baby can't survive with 'normal' help for a premature baby then really, why let it live? It's almost certainly going to have a miserable life.

It's harsh reality for ya.
User avatar
Titanic
Posts: 1558
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2007 12:58 pm
Location: Northampton, UK

Re: "Doctors told me it was against the rules to save my baby"UK

Post by Titanic »

GabonX wrote:
Titanic wrote:No idea, but we'll still have a rate a hell of a lot better then yours.

Btw, notice how all your posts criticising the NHS comes from the Daily Mail? Its the paper equivalent of Fox News, a horrible media outlet.

You judge a healthcare system not by looking at individual cases or highlighting individual people, but by looking at the system as a whole, in which case Europe's sytems kick the USA's systems arse.

Not all of my articles come from the same source. You're grasping for straws with that one :roll:

Individual cases can highlight flaws in a given system. In all frankness, I question the legitimacy of statistics which are critical of the United States as many of them are given by organizations which have a vested interest in promoting their own socialized health care systems. Luns had provided a number of links which explain how a number of these statistics are flat out wrong.

The question of whether or not the UK includes premature births on it's infant mortality rate is very relevant in this regard.


The huge majority of you posts about the British healthcare system and individual cases within it have come from the Daily Mail, there is no denying that.

How about the statistics provided by the US government about healthcare, or the ones used by the OECD, or the ones used by the UN, are they alright to use or do they all also have "a vested interest"? US infant mortality is still a very high, and either way the British numbers are calculated it will still be better then the US figure.

john9blue wrote:Good job denying facts because of their source. Also, the thing this woman is fighting against IS the system as a whole. She wants to change the rules themselves. She's not looking for money or anything, at least not that I'm aware of. :roll::


I never denied the fact because of the source, I said his highlighting of individual cases all came from one source, and that source is heavily biased so all the cases he reads will have an agenda behind it. She is looking for something (probably money), which is why she sold the story to the paper in the first place.

Finally, I never said that what happened isn't wrong. Show me a perfect healthcare system currently in operation and I'll give you my credit card and PIN number. Its what the overall system is like that counts, and whether the healthcare system in total is better or worse then the other one. In this regard the British healthcare system is much better then the current American healthcare system.
User avatar
Snorri1234
Posts: 3438
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2007 12:52 pm
Location: Right in the middle of a fucking reptile zoo.
Contact:

Re: "Doctors told me it was against the rules to save my baby"UK

Post by Snorri1234 »

AlgyTaylor wrote:Besides which - the baby was 21 weeks ... even if it did survive being born prematurely, it almost certainly wouldn't have lead a life worth living.


If the baby was 21 weeks, it almost certainly would have died even if doctors helped.
"Some motherfuckers are always trying to ice skate uphill."

Duane: You know what they say about love and war.
Tim: Yes, one involves a lot of physical and psychological pain, and the other one's war.
User avatar
beezer
Posts: 285
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2007 4:41 pm
Location: Dallas, Texas

Re: "Doctors told me it was against the rules to save my baby"UK

Post by beezer »

john9blue wrote:
Titanic wrote:No idea, but we'll still have a rate a hell of a lot better then yours.

Btw, notice how all your posts criticising the NHS comes from the Daily Mail? Its the paper equivalent of Fox News, a horrible media outlet.

You judge a healthcare system not by looking at individual cases or highlighting individual people, but by looking at the system as a whole, in which case Europe's sytems kick the USA's systems arse.


Bloody good post, old chap!

Brits...

Good job denying facts because of their source. Also, the thing this woman is fighting against IS the system as a whole. She wants to change the rules themselves. She's not looking for money or anything, at least not that I'm aware of. :roll:



EDIT: Gabon pretty much said what I did except nicer. :lol:


I would also echo your thoughts on that. This is getting a bit ridiculous. Instead of the dealing with the facts within the story, Titanic and others just go off with some type of charge that it's all made up because it comes from a source that's not to their liking. I guess the fact that about 4,000 mothers are giving birth in corridors is also just a total fabrication since it was reported by the Daily Mail.

I remember watching Barack Obama getting elected President of the United States last November. The thing is, I can't really believe that it actually happened because it was reported on Fox News. :roll:
Image
User avatar
Gypsys Kiss
Posts: 1038
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:23 pm
Gender: Male
Location: In a darkened room, beyond the reach of Gods faith

Re: "Doctors told me it was against the rules to save my baby"UK

Post by Gypsys Kiss »

GabonX wrote:Here is another NHS damning article that I have cherry picked


If I was to trawl through the US press, how many articles would I come across condeming the US system. Is there any chance you could find a 'good' story about the NHS?

No, of course not because you are not interested in good stories. You are only interested in your one-sided point of view.
Image
User avatar
Gypsys Kiss
Posts: 1038
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:23 pm
Gender: Male
Location: In a darkened room, beyond the reach of Gods faith

Re: "Doctors told me it was against the rules to save my baby"UK

Post by Gypsys Kiss »

beezer wrote:
john9blue wrote:
Titanic wrote:No idea, but we'll still have a rate a hell of a lot better then yours.

Btw, notice how all your posts criticising the NHS comes from the Daily Mail? Its the paper equivalent of Fox News, a horrible media outlet.

You judge a healthcare system not by looking at individual cases or highlighting individual people, but by looking at the system as a whole, in which case Europe's sytems kick the USA's systems arse.


Bloody good post, old chap!

Brits...

Good job denying facts because of their source. Also, the thing this woman is fighting against IS the system as a whole. She wants to change the rules themselves. She's not looking for money or anything, at least not that I'm aware of. :roll:



EDIT: Gabon pretty much said what I did except nicer. :lol:


I would also echo your thoughts on that. This is getting a bit ridiculous. Instead of the dealing with the facts within the story, Titanic and others just go off with some type of charge that it's all made up because it comes from a source that's not to their liking. I guess the fact that about 4,000 mothers are giving birth in corridors is also just a total fabrication since it was reported by the Daily Mail.

I remember watching Barack Obama getting elected President of the United States last November. The thing is, I can't really believe that it actually happened because it was reported on Fox News. :roll:


Yes it is getting ridiculous. Why pick on the NHS. If the US system was so fucking perfect they wouldnt be proposing changes.
Image
User avatar
comic boy
Posts: 1738
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2007 3:54 pm
Location: London

Re: "Doctors told me it was against the rules to save my baby"UK

Post by comic boy »

GabonX wrote:This story also lends credibility to the claims that "Death Panels" may arise as a result of socialized health care as we see that they do in fact exist in the UK for the new born.


Please give me statistics that show that 21 week old babies are routinely given extensive medical treatment in US hospitals , I dont believe they are in which case your claims are just scaremongering rubbish.
Im a TOFU miSfit
User avatar
Titanic
Posts: 1558
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2007 12:58 pm
Location: Northampton, UK

Re: "Doctors told me it was against the rules to save my baby"UK

Post by Titanic »

beezer wrote:
john9blue wrote:
Titanic wrote:No idea, but we'll still have a rate a hell of a lot better then yours.

Btw, notice how all your posts criticising the NHS comes from the Daily Mail? Its the paper equivalent of Fox News, a horrible media outlet.

You judge a healthcare system not by looking at individual cases or highlighting individual people, but by looking at the system as a whole, in which case Europe's sytems kick the USA's systems arse.


Bloody good post, old chap!

Brits...

Good job denying facts because of their source. Also, the thing this woman is fighting against IS the system as a whole. She wants to change the rules themselves. She's not looking for money or anything, at least not that I'm aware of. :roll:



EDIT: Gabon pretty much said what I did except nicer. :lol:


I would also echo your thoughts on that. This is getting a bit ridiculous. Instead of the dealing with the facts within the story, Titanic and others just go off with some type of charge that it's all made up because it comes from a source that's not to their liking. I guess the fact that about 4,000 mothers are giving birth in corridors is also just a total fabrication since it was reported by the Daily Mail.

I remember watching Barack Obama getting elected President of the United States last November. The thing is, I can't really believe that it actually happened because it was reported on Fox News. :roll:


Congratulations on completely not understanding my point. Go back and re-read, it might enlighten you, although probably not considering just how badly you misunderstood first time around.
User avatar
Snorri1234
Posts: 3438
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2007 12:52 pm
Location: Right in the middle of a fucking reptile zoo.
Contact:

Re: "Doctors told me it was against the rules to save my baby"UK

Post by Snorri1234 »

Gypsys Kiss wrote:
GabonX wrote:Here is another NHS damning article that I have cherry picked


If I was to trawl through the US press, how many articles would I come across condeming the US system. Is there any chance you could find a 'good' story about the NHS?

No, of course not because you are not interested in good stories. You are only interested in your one-sided point of view.


NOTHING BAD EVER HAPPENS IN THE US!
"Some motherfuckers are always trying to ice skate uphill."

Duane: You know what they say about love and war.
Tim: Yes, one involves a lot of physical and psychological pain, and the other one's war.
User avatar
FoolishFool
Posts: 14
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 3:53 pm
Location: You know... somewhere.

Re: "Doctors told me it was against the rules to save my baby"UK

Post by FoolishFool »

This is ridiculous. Yes it is a tragedy that this woman couldn't save her baby, but the chances were against her:

sources:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/apr/12/health.health
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/6156304/Survival-of-very-premature-babies-barely-improved-in-ten-years.html

And please with the current American health care system, our infant mortality rate is worse than England's by a fair bit (6.26 vs. 4.85 deaths per 1000).

source:
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2091rank.html

Huge fan of Obama's health care program I am not, but willing to test it for three years, yes.
You foolish fools will never defeat me! You're far too busy being foolish.

-Omega, RvB
User avatar
Simon Viavant
Posts: 328
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 9:17 pm
Location: Alaska

Re: "Doctors told me it was against the rules to save my baby"UK

Post by Simon Viavant »

Should've had a gun
ImageImageImage
Remember Them
User avatar
beezer
Posts: 285
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2007 4:41 pm
Location: Dallas, Texas

Re: "Doctors told me it was against the rules to save my baby"UK

Post by beezer »

Titanic wrote:Congratulations on completely not understanding my point. Go back and re-read, it might enlighten you, although probably not considering just how badly you misunderstood first time around.


Oh don't worry, I knew exactly what I meant when I called your criticism ridiculous
User avatar
GabonX
Posts: 899
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2006 11:38 am
Gender: Male
Contact:

Re: "Doctors told me it was against the rules to save my baby"UK

Post by GabonX »

The response to this is rather impressive.

There was a post in another thread that explained how it is arrogant for Americans to not acknowledge the problems in their own bureaucratic systems and to shut out knowledge which would indicate that other nations have a better model. Here we see a fundamental flaw in the system of another country which does not exist in the United States and people deny that the problem is relevant and attack the source without actually refuting the story.

I acknowledge that the price of health care in the United States is to expensive for some and that it would be in the common interest to make care more affordable. With that said, I haven't seen any other nation with a health care system which I would rather live under than the one I do now.

There are real and serious flaws with every health care system in the world today. If I had to choose between suffering monetarily or being denied the right to make life defining decisions for myself (or being denied any other liberty which I consider essential), I would choose to live as I do now with no change to the system.

comic boy wrote:Are there not guidelines in the USA for instances such as this, does standard healthcare insurance cover all degrees of premature birth.(Come on man..At least try to use grammar. I suspect that this was written with much emotion and in haste but it would be a lot easier to understand if you took a breath before writing.) What would the premium be to cover a patient with a history of 5 miscarriages for treatment that is almost certain to lead to the death or major disability of the baby, in the case of disability who would then be liable for ongoing medical care ?

The specifics are irrelevant really. Your talking about guidelines regarding when to not save a life. In the United States we want the patient and the family to be able to make that decision for themselves without having a government dictate to them. As Americans we insist that these considerations fall to the family rather than bureaucracy.

If the government refuses to foot the tab (and I think that at a point, this will always be the case) the people should still be allowed to negotiate services with a doctor. A mother should not be left pleading for the life of her child and be refused as was the case here.
Titanic wrote:
How about the statistics provided by the US government about healthcare, or the ones used by the OECD, or the ones used by the UN, are they alright to use or do they all also have "a vested interest"? US infant mortality is still a very high, and either way the British numbers are calculated it will still be better then the US figure.

The statistics provided by the US government were exactly the ones which were refuted. These would have been the only ones I would have seen as credible as it is too common that international organizations produce mistruthful data. Sometimes this is by accident as it is difficult to gather information about another nation, but others (as is the case with health care) governments have a vested interest in touting the success of their own system.

In my world view the best adjective to describe the UN would be "incompetent" and though I am unfamiliar with the OECD (I'm going to check it out) I remain skeptical of it as well.

Also..
.. If the current majority of the UK said that the sun rises in the east, I would wake up early to check. ;)
Spazz Arcane wrote:If birds could swim and fish could fly I would awaken in the morning to the sturgeons cry. If fish could fly and birds could swim I'd still use worms to fish for them.
saxitoxin wrote:I'm on Team GabonX
Post Reply

Return to “Acceptable Content”