http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...care-limit.html


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.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...l#ixzz0Rm7UUPS0

G.V.D.

You're right, we all should pay for the 100's of 1000's of dollars of life-saving emergency medicine this baby required, on the vanishingly small chance the baby could be saved. I mean we're talking way below 1% chance of survival, but that doesn't matter, we should spare no effort to save the baby.

Unless of course we're talking about the baby of someone uninsured... Because screw those guys.

IR----I am only asking a question....but you're right in that I'm right....and you're wrong.

Looks like "Death Panels" will be resurrected from the dead and chaired by our illustrious carpet baggers on the left.

So you think that baby, AFTER it's born, should not get the best medical care available? Has the liberal left indoctrinated you to the point that not only is abortion OK but with holding medical care for the living is ethical and only to be viewed in dollars and cents????? I thought the limp wristed left was supposed to compassionate and caring....pfft.

Pretty f.ckin heartless take on a situation that should you ever find yourself or spouse facing I imagine you'd be crying a different tune.

But hey at least you got to cradle that infant in your arms till it died...I mean that was pretty nice of them "Docs"...they coulda' just thrown that baby in the dumpster.

They let you kids use the internet at recess or are ya just home with the sniffles?

Get out and get some excercise fatty or Irishrogue will withhold your gastric bypass surgery funds...

You do know that is a different country don't you?

What would Cuba do?

"Miss Capewell, who has had five miscarriages"

You'd think this situation would be right up the Republican alley. The baby wasn't aborted and a ton of money was saved instead of the taxpayer picking up the tab. Or are you for higher taxes now?

If viable is the term we are gonna' use to determine whether or not we initiate life saving care then I would submit that most CPR performed on a trauma patient is unsuccessful...should all EMT's..firefighters...ER techs...nurses...paramedics...etc stop responding and attempting to resuscitate anyone involved in trauma since it is EXTREMELY unlikey that CPR will fail? At least without electricity/drugs most CPR (medical and trauma) is wholly unsuccessful...

Slippery slope....

OK RvW, you be the judge. It's your tax dollars at work. Oh, and if you spend them on attempting to save the premie which has a very low probability of survival, those dollars won't be available for measures that would have a high probability of success on other patients. What would you do?

Whether it's public or private health insurance at work, I don't see spending scarce resources on low probability outcomes - let research take care of that, since all of today's high probability outcomes were once low probabilities, but that's a separate subject. Public or pooled resources ought to be spent were the best gain per dollar spent is attained. If people want to cover extraordinary measures that have a low probability of success, they can buy special, expensive, coverage for that or just pay for it out of pocket themselves if they're rich enough. Yep, being rich has its benefits.

So again, what would you do? And why?

Sg

I am wholly against "society" or doctors making my choices for me and my loved ones. Especially when money is their motivating factor.

..and the viability of a trauma CPR is still close to 0% (hard to circulate blood when they've exanguinated)....doesn't mean we shouldn't try.....how many Airlift NW flights (at huge costs) result in the inevitable death of the patient (and sometimes of the crew and chopper)?

..and CPR is "sometimes" effective as long as drugs and electricity (defib) is employed...it is not "often" successful, but it doesn't mean that it shouldn't be attempted. Even though it allocates resources and money to what most likely will result in a "failed" attempt.

I worked as a firefighter/EMT/Rescue diver for years and have seen first hand the futility involved in the endeavor but never witnessed a fellow first responder act as the final judge. The only time that scenario would come into play would be a triage of a mass casualty incident....and then that would fall on the shoulders of the medical incident commander...a job nobody ever wants.

Rationing of care and with holding care should be left to miserable f.ckin countries with a socialist agenda....

Sensitive topic, no doubt.

Only thing that hasn't been covered...

WHO is going to be the one to tell the new Mother that it was decided by the Gov't mandate that her baby should not live?

ISO

I know a lady that was born dead. The doctors gave up on the baby and were trying to keep the mother going after an emergency c section. Someone looked over at the baby and it moved.

The lady is in her 50's now and has lived a great life. Can't put a price tag on human life.

Amen.

I've seen some pretty incredible things that no one expected to happen...happen. When money is our primary motivator decency and compassion and science will take a back seat.

Dude, you're not getting it. People make decisions on money versus lives *all the time*.

Auto manufacturers do it.

Cities budgeting for their police force expenditures do it.

Airplane manufacturers do it.

Civil engineers do it.

Doctors do it.

The drama here is not socialist or communist, it is pragmatist. Simply put, people put value on human lives ALL THE TIME.. You might have traded off money for your own life when you bought that fuel-efficient-but-not-crash-worthy car. The engineers building the bridge you drove across this AM didn't build it to never fail, they built it to have an acceptable risk of not failing.

And the reason you want intelligent cost/benefit decisions made at the end of life, be it a premature baby or a convalescent senior, is because the money has to come from somewhere.. Unless you're independently wealthy and are spending your own savings, that somewhere is a pool (insurance, medicare, etc) shared by us all. Just like your mass casualty example, there isn't enough resource (in your case first responders, in mine money) to give everyone everything we could possibly imagine giving them.

Nobody here wants to deny ordinary care (e.g. CPR) to everyone. What we are talking about is EXTRAORDINARY care (e.g. 6 months of ICU care for what is medically an unviable fetus)...

Salmo---I don't mind paying taxes.....and I pay plenty. I'd rather have them try and save that newborn than to send a f.ckin insane murderer to the county fair..only to escape and cost us 10's or 100's of thousands more searching for his ass. I'd realocate our tax money to reform our prison system so that we didn't pay for any f.ckin procedure they need while denying it to the innocent. Under my system prison would be for bad m'frs not petty drug crimes and they would earn their keep...no cable no "free" medical/college/law school....hard work making sand to export to the middle east.

There is a lot more I would do but first I'd try and save money from the c.cksuckers that are siphoning it out of the system before denying it to the innocent.

Think welfare...think no more DEA...think strong borders without a major drain from illegals that contribute nothing..Zero..nada....think less prisons...less corrupt prison guards sucking our tax money.

Big topic but I would like to give the most vulnerable in our society like kids, the disabled and the mentally challenged like hohbomb a chance at something better.

I heard the fish are biting.

IR----I understand what you are saying and the examples you cite are fair but when you carry that cost/benefit analysis over to healthcare you are wrong....or at least very frightening to many of us that are worried that Obamacare will lead to exactly that.

We go to extraordinary measures with our life saving actions in this country and rightfully so... but if one starts analyzing cost/benefit ratios against all things, we will all lose and so will those that compassionate people should defend.

How compassionate was it to shoot your dad, asshat??



BTW, you got a problem with fat people?

Dude you don't get it....CPR isn't ordinary care....and that fetus in ICU for 6 months has more than once grown up and lived a healthy, productive life. I don't think you are any more qualified playing God than I am...but if you think you know for certain what the future holds good luck.

Engineers and the other examples you cite don't guarantee that the bridge will last forever anymore than doctors do...everything will eventually fail but should the bridge not have been built because we know it won't last forever? Should the doctor not try his/her best because they know death is possible and eventually inevitable?

We shoulda killed Christopher Reeves and Stephen Hawking while we had the chance....and yeah they're rich but insurance paid/ pays for their care....

They were REALLY mean to you, weren't they?