Report: Early preemies should not be saved

SuzannePjamSuzannePjam Posts: 411
edited November 2006 in A Moving Train
Report: Early preemies should not be saved
British guidelines advise against care for babies born before 22 weeks

LONDON - Premature babies born before 22 weeks gestation should not be given intensive care treatment to keep them alive, according to a report released in Britain on Wednesday.
Despite medical advances in prolonging life, the Nuffield Council on Bioethics said the chances of an infant surviving after less than 22 weeks in the womb are very slim and that they often develop severe disabilities.
In guidelines issued to help doctors and parents make difficult decisions about the care of extremely premature infants, the report recommended parents of babies born after 23 should be consulted and have the final say in whether intensive care is given to their baby.
“Natural instincts are to try to save all babies, even if the baby’s chances of survival are low,” said Professor Margaret Brazier who chaired the committee that produced the report.
“However, we don’t think it is always right to put a baby through the stress and pain of invasive treatment if the baby is unlikely to get better and death is inevitable.”
The report by the independent body that examines ethical issues raised by new development in medicine was released after two years of research. It stressed euthanasia of newborn babies should not be allowed.
Clear distinctions
Religious leaders in Britain welcomed the report saying it sets a clear distinction between interventions to cause death and decisions to withdraw or withhold treatment if it is thought to be futile.
“This reaffirms the validity of existing law prohibiting euthanasia, and upholds the vital and fundamental moral principle that the deliberate taking of innocent human life is always gravely wrong,” the Church of England House of Bishops and the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales said in a joint statement.
They added that doctors do not have an overriding obligation to prolong life by all available means and said every case should be judged on its merits.
The report said it should be normal practice to give intensive care to babies born between 24-25 weeks gestation unless it is agreed by the doctors and the parents that there is no hope of the infant surviving or that the level of suffering would be too great.
Intensive care should not normally be given to babies born after more than 25 weeks in the womb because they have a high chance of survival and a low risk of suffering from disabilities.
Dr. Tony Calland, chairman of the medical ethics committee at the British Medical Association (BMA) said the guidelines issued in the report echo existing best practice.
But the BMA did not agree with stringent cut-off points for treatment and stressed that each case should be assessed independently.
“The BMA is opposed to euthanasia and therefore we agree that the active ending of life of newborn babies should not be allowed,” Calland said in a statement.
Although the number of premature babies surviving has been increasing since the 1980s, only about 1 percent of infants born between 22 and 23 weeks gestation survive to leave hospital, according to the report.
“We believe that the guidelines will help parents and doctors to make decisions in these very traumatic situations,” Brazier added.
"Where there is sacrifice there is someone collecting the sacrificial offerings."-- Ayn Rand

"Some of my friends sit around every evening and they worry about the times ahead,
But everybody else is overwhelmed by indifference and the promise of an early bed..."-- Elvis Costello
Post edited by Unknown User on

Comments

  • only about 1 percent of infants born between 22 and 23 weeks gestation survive to leave hospital, according to the report.
    I wonder if even this number is only due to the gestational age being misjudged. At 22 weeks the lungs aren't developed enough to allow any gas exchange at all.
  • wouldn't that be a tough call. gees,...
    you're a real hooker. im gonna slap you in public.
    ~Ron Burgundy
  • justamjustam Posts: 21,410
    Thank God someone has a bit of common sense on this. For years I've been thinking that it's worse for the parents to have these severely disabled kids left on their hands just because they could be kept alive.

    People think it's so unkind to let anything die, but on the other hand, how kind is it to burden people with a lifetime of care for these kids?
    &&&&&&&&&&&&&&
  • justam wrote:
    Thank God someone has a bit of common sense on this. For years I've been thinking that it's worse for the parents to have these severely disabled kids left on their hands just because they could be kept alive.

    People think it's so unkind to let anything die, but on the other hand, how kind is it to burden people with a lifetime of care for these kids?

    I completely agree. It takes the guilt out of the hands of the parents who probably would try to keep the child alive at all costs. In some ways I find it similar to the Terry Schiavo case. Out of love for their child they were unwilling to let go and unfortunately were caring for a completely brain dead person as a result.
    "Where there is sacrifice there is someone collecting the sacrificial offerings."-- Ayn Rand

    "Some of my friends sit around every evening and they worry about the times ahead,
    But everybody else is overwhelmed by indifference and the promise of an early bed..."-- Elvis Costello
Sign In or Register to comment.