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

[AlgyTaylor]

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.

I'm sure she could've asked for the baby to be treated at a private hospital if she'd wanted, and they would've treated it. No different to the US in that respect. The difference is that had the baby had a realistic chance of surviving she wouldn't have needed to pay for private treatment whereas in the US, she would.

As I've said, it's really up to americans to decide whether they prefer their system or ours - but I'd personally much rather live in a situation that I don't need to worry about 'what happens if I get ill'. Here, it doesn't matter - even a struggling family, or a homeless person, or whatever - they all get good quality medical care without needing to worry about how they might pay for it.

The NHS is truely one of the best things about Britain IMO

[AlgyTaylor]

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.

Don't think anyone's saying that the Daily Mail stories aren't factually correct. They're just not particularly representative of the system, which on the whole is very, very good.

[heavycola]

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.

This is so moronic it actually beggars belief, even on this forum.

let's have a look at the actual story, shall we?

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.

if you had actually read the story you copied and pasted, you might have read these paragraphs.

The Nuffield Council on Bioethics' terms of reference do not cover funding of treatments; it is an independent body which considers the ethical considerations of medical treatments only.
Funding has nothing to do with this story. NOTHING. Please find its mention in the story and copy and paste it out again. We have one mention of the amount spent on premature babies per year - and that's all. No one disputes it or suggests for one second this is a story about scarcity of resources. As you would no doubt have recognised, had you read it properly.

This story is dependent on one source: a devastated and bereaved woman who is not, presumably, a prenatal clinician. We have her take on the situation - amplified by a newspaper with a famous bias - and nothing from the doctors involved, save a statement from the hospital's press officer.

What's more, to compare this case with one miracle baby from the US is blatantly disingenuous. Helpfully bolded though, thanks.
Again, if you read on, you get a few actual facts, buried down in the story way below where your average frothing-mouthed, kneejerking, knuckle-dragging shitkicker is likely to reach before their self-righteousness valves explode all over their cornflakes:

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

You haven't done anything by posting this except signpost your own ignorance. It's not too much to ask people to read what they copy and paste, is it?

[comic boy]

I think we can safely assume that ,as evidenced by his evasions and distortions, Gabon concedes that he is in fact simply muckraking once again

[GabonX]

Way for you guys to totally miss the point.

It doesn't matter what some experts may think. It's a fact that children can and do survive even earlier than this, and this was explained in the article.

In the end, as Americans we insist that the decision rest with the family and not bureaucratic protocol (we don't want a panel making life and death decisions for us as was the case here). Nice job dodging everything in my last post though as opposed to addressing the real issues

[joecoolfrog]

:-s

Way for you guys to totally miss the point.

It doesn't matter what some experts may think. It's a fact that children can and do survive even earlier than this, and this was explained in the article.

In the end, as Americans we insist that the decision rest with the family and not bureaucratic protocol (we don't want a panel making life and death decisions for us as was the case here). Nice job dodging everything in my last post though as opposed to addressing the real issues

Except
Every single family in Britain has the the option of private care subject to financial considerations, exactly the same as in the USA. No family is forced to use the NHS or forced to abide by the regulations, it is an option only, why do you pretend otherwise ?

[Titanic]

Gabon you say you prefer the system you currently have over all others. How about systems which produce greater results for a lower cost? What else could you really want from a healthcare system. It heals you at a better rate, and for a lower cost.

Also I really don't understand you points about the health statistics. The US government is not going to lie about them, and it doesn't matter what you think about the UN because I was just referring to the statistics that they use in their research (not talking about the actual organisation itself), and your point on the OECD is just so typical of modern conservatives. Your skeptical of the OECD but don't actually know who they are or what they do.

On to this point I raise this, if you do not beleive the health statistics they produce about the USA how can you even compare the US health system to any other as you have no accurate statistics about the US health system? I read your arguament as this - I know the USA has the best healthcare in the world because all other ones have flaws which can be pointed to, but I won't compare the healthcare statistics because I don't believe the statistics are true as the sources are all biased or wrong.

[Snorri1234]

:-s

Way for you guys to totally miss the point.

It doesn't matter what some experts may think. It's a fact that children can and do survive even earlier than this, and this was explained in the article.

In the end, as Americans we insist that the decision rest with the family and not bureaucratic protocol (we don't want a panel making life and death decisions for us as was the case here). Nice job dodging everything in my last post though as opposed to addressing the real issues

Way to ignore the fact that THE AMERICAN DOCTORS WOULDN'T HAVE GIVEN HER TREATMENT EITHER!

Noone is going to save a baby under 22 weeks because there is virtually no chance at all that the baby will survive.

[heavycola]

Talk about not responding to your points, such as they are - you still demonstrate no evidence of having actually read and digested the article you posted in the first place.

It doesn't matter what some experts may think. It's a fact that children can and do survive even earlier than this, and this was explained in the article.

No, not children - *a* child. As the article went on to explain - or did you not get to that part? - the child mentioned is the only baby ever to have survived being born that early. It is an exception that proves that the experts and their guidelines are pretty much on the money - which is obviously of no comfort to a bereaved mother, or to a frustrated arguer with no real grasp of the issues who is obviously desperate to twist a very sad but utterly unconnected story into a 'point'.

In the end, as Americans we insist that the decision rest with the family and not bureaucratic protocol (we don't want a panel making life and death decisions for us as was the case here).

Again, if you had actually read the article all the way to the end, or had done even some cursory research into this, you would understand that NCB provides guidelines based on consultation with medical professionals, ethicists and even religious representatives, before issuing voluntarily adhered-to guidelines. Not bureaucratic protocols.
With me so far?

As far as the 'panel' goes, the decision was made by qualified professionals who work in their chosen field presumably because they actually care very deeply about the people in their charge. To suggest for one single fucking second that this decision was rooted purely in 'bureaucratic protocols' and not in accumulated years of experience in prenatal care, coupled to guidelines based on detailed and extensive ethical consulatation - shame on you.
I do realise it behooves you to twist every last fucking thing around to support whatever passes for ideology in your world, but this is really fucking low.