This doesn't sound particularly extreme to me. 22 weeks is incredibly early. Not keeping someone alive when it most likely causes the person extreme discomfort and the chances for survival and significant improvement are very low isn't euthanasia.
There is a more troublesome dilemma I read about recently. Here is the situation: a pregnant woman develops a complication around 22-23 weeks which makes it extremely likely that the baby will have to be born within the next few weeks. The chances of a 24-25 week premature baby are about 50/50 for survival, 50/50 for serious diability in case of survival. The parents are told that they won't have an option of letting the baby expire if the baby is born after 24 weeks so they opt for an abortion of an otherwise wanted pregnancy before 24 weeks in order to avoid the high chance of having a disabled child.
>>chances for survival and significant improvement are very low I realize that they're practically non-existent, but I still feel libertarian on this one, that parents should be given a choice in the matter.
The other case is strange - how could they not have the option to refuse care? Or does that fall under some child neglect laws or something?
Realistically, doctors will deny many requests for care of a sick person coming from the person's family if the doctors consider the requested measures unreasonable.
The other case, if I remember correctly, is also from UK. I'm not sure how it works technically, but yes, it's the case when doctors can override parents if they consider it in the best interest of the child, and 25% chance of growing into a healthy child can be considered worth it.
in the UK, with socialized medicine, and the state taking care of the disabled along with it, I can see how they'd have a right to make the decision, I guess.
This is not a case for or against your point, just a personal example that for me forever changed the way I look at this issue of early premies. I worked with a little guy who was born at 23.5 weeks. He was in the hospital for the first six months of his life, on a trache and a ventilator for the first two years. But you could just see it in his eyes that he had this incredible zest for life, even when he was very sick. I worked with him up until he was 3 years old, and by the time he turned three, the only developmental issue he had was a delay in his speech (because for the first two years of his life he couldn't make a single sound, not even crying or laughing), and even that was catching up, so he was starting to put 2-3 words together by that time. He was free of any medical interventions and was not on any medications. He was still prone to colds in the winter and was smaller in size than his peers, but he had his amazing personality to make up for all of that. He was bright, social, funny, and just a sheer delight all
( ... )
Would a blanket rule bother you as much if it said 20 weeks? 16 weeks? The fact of current medical technology is that there is a point when the chance of survival is essentially zero, but a premie's life can be supported for a limited time. I just don't see the statement of this fact as presenting much of a dilemma. The parents don't always know where this point is, and the doctors can simply tell them.
I offer the other story as an example of a real dilemma, but I am actually not making any point about it (although I could). I also know a few children who were born extremely prematurely and are doing very well.
There is a more troublesome dilemma I read about recently. Here is the situation: a pregnant woman develops a complication around 22-23 weeks which makes it extremely likely that the baby will have to be born within the next few weeks. The chances of a 24-25 week premature baby are about 50/50 for survival, 50/50 for serious diability in case of survival. The parents are told that they won't have an option of letting the baby expire if the baby is born after 24 weeks so they opt for an abortion of an otherwise wanted pregnancy before 24 weeks in order to avoid the high chance of having a disabled child.
Reply
I realize that they're practically non-existent, but I still feel libertarian on this one, that parents should be given a choice in the matter.
The other case is strange - how could they not have the option to refuse care? Or does that fall under some child neglect laws or something?
Reply
The other case, if I remember correctly, is also from UK. I'm not sure how it works technically, but yes, it's the case when doctors can override parents if they consider it in the best interest of the child, and 25% chance of growing into a healthy child can be considered worth it.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Which way are you leaning on this one? Let the disabled baby expire or prohibit abortions?
(My leaning is for the 1st choice, since I consider the right to abortion sacred but want to make sure that more wanted babies are born.)
Reply
Reply
I offer the other story as an example of a real dilemma, but I am actually not making any point about it (although I could). I also know a few children who were born extremely prematurely and are doing very well.
Reply
Leave a comment