Baby born 48 hours too soon left to die by doctors because Government guideline
By AnjaP
@Rollo1 (16679)
Boston, Massachusetts
September 12, 2009 10:19am CST
prohibits them. This is how care is rationed in government run health care.
There's been a lot of talk about "death panels" and of course, the chosen examples are always about "pulling the plug on Grandma" an example used mainly to make those with genuine concerns look foolish.
But the truth is that benefits will be rationed in that there will be strict guidelines on what doctors may or may not do, what tests they may or may not order based on some criteria that will be decided by a panel of 27 benefits advisory members, 18 of which will be appointed by the president. Not just this president but any president to follow him. At least 10 of those members will be Federal employees.
An example of how those "guidelines" can impact in situations involving much more than just the refusal of treatment to the elderly is contained in this heartbreaking story of a child born just 48 hours too soon to meet the guidelines for treatment. This tiny, premature baby boy struggled to survive for two hours after he was born, but without an incubator to keep him warm, he literally froze to death while his mother desperately pleaded with hospital staff. The midwife tried to advocate for the child, but doctors refused to even SEE him or assess his condition. Although he was breathing on his own and moving his arms and legs, they labeled him Stillborn, and he was officially recorded as a miscarriage.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1212924/Doctors-said-Id-miscarriage-did-premature-baby-fought-life.html
I could find any number of stories on the much higher death rates from cancer in countries with socialized medicine, or the stories of women giving birth on a sidewalk or in a car or in the hospital parking lot because regulations or hospital crowding prevented them from being afforded ambulances or medical care.
But this story of a woman, who never thought she would be able to have another child and then did, only to have his life discarded by the system, is the most poignant example I have seen.
Do you really want the government to make life and death decisions?
5 people like this
11 responses
@mellissa2000 (178)
• United States
12 Sep 09
That's horrible! Everything that is living deserves the chance to continue to do so. When JFK was shot he was transported to the hospital although his brains were scattered on the road..Why?? Because they wanted him to survive. If a president that has practically 0 chance of surviving something of that sort and gets treatment why shouldn't a child with a 1% chance be given the same opportunity. Statistics are broken and changed everyday, if we just follow the statistics how will they ever be changed??
2 people like this
@mellissa2000 (178)
• United States
12 Sep 09
I just looked it up. The statistics say that at 23 weeks a baby has a 17% chance of surviving. At 24 it jumps to 39%. They were wrong and they should be man enough to admit that.
1 person likes this
@mellissa2000 (178)
• United States
12 Sep 09
If anyone is on facebook, there is a group called Justice for Jayden on it. I ask that if you have facebook to join the group and sign the petition. This guideline needs to be changed. http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=44595174482
1 person likes this
@BStuff (495)
• United States
13 Sep 09
I think this is just extreamely sad. My neice was born at 22weeks and is now a healthy happy 3 year old. I can't even comment on what your clearly trying to imply the government is working towards with this topic. I do not agree or believe it. We are not other countries. I for the first time in 8 years can finally say I have a president I can follow and I will follow. I trust this government and its propaganda hate that is ruining most peoples trust in that government. We chose him so we must rally behind him. We need UHC. It's time.
2 people like this
@Rollo1 (16679)
• Boston, Massachusetts
13 Sep 09
Did you read the part about who will decide what the benefits guidelines will be? It will be a panel of 27, 18 of whom are appointed by the president. Not just this president that you trust and will follow. The one after him, and the one after that. Any president appointing a majority of the people who make these decisions will be directly involved in what medical care is rationed or allowed. Think about that. Obama won't be president forever, he may not even be president when this bill takes effect in 2013. So, how would you like Sarah Palin deciding your health care or John McCain or any other person who might become president after that? You really trust your government too much, without reason.
1 person likes this
@BStuff (495)
• United States
13 Sep 09
Let's be serious here Sarah Palin is never going to be president. She's never going to be Vice President. She's never going to be PTA president. I trust that Obama will be re-elected and that this government will take care of it's people. It may sound naieve or wishful thinking but I believe in the system. It will take time but I believe this could be a good thing. This is going to help regulate the costs and help people liek me who cant afford health care reiceve it.I sprained my ankle last year and couldnt afford to go have it check out so I bought some crutches and just dealt with the pain. I pulled my back year before and laid in bed for a week with no real pain killers just tylonol. I dont want my children or grandchildern to have to go through that. This country is better than that. This is going to stop the big insurence companies from bullying people into over paying. I'm not sayign I approve of every part of the plan but even bringing one to the table is better than just complaining about it.
@sid556 (30960)
• United States
13 Sep 09
I could not access the link you provided so I don't know what country this took place in. I think here in the states that much depends upon the conscious of the doctor. I know people who have had babies way way early that have no insurance at all and the doctor will do everything against all odds to save that baby. The time frame you are talking about...very rarely, they might be successful and if they are it is usually only for a short time. I imagine that to the parents that short time is everything but the cost is astronomical. I would hope that the doctor would use some discretion and if there were a chance in hll that the baby could be saved that he would do all that he could. I don't know. I really don't know what to think on this whole insurance issue. I had insurance thru my work and I had cancer. It was cancer of the cervix and it was my 2nd time around with it & it was spreading. A very treatable cancer but once it spreads to other organs...kiss your little butt goodbye. I was extremely lucky to have a specialist spot it when the doctors had for months and months not detected it. I knew something was wrong! My insurance was going to deny me surgery by the specialist because it fell under a gynocological procedure and I'd already had my quota of visits for the year! The visits were to try to get to the bottom of the problem! I argued and argued and finally they agreed it was cancer...not a gynocology issue. Then I had to get the approval & recommendation of my family doctor to get treated by the specialist! I had not seen my family doctor ever for that sort of thing. Seriously..he is who I went to for other ailments but he had nothing to do with that. It was all dumb and time consuming and just made more money for the insurance company. So you tell me...what is better? They both suck from where I stand!
1 person likes this
@rodney850 (2145)
• United States
12 Sep 09
Rollo,
If you think this is appaling, wait until the same situations are treated the same way in the US. I am assuming this took place in England or perhaps Australia since there was no city reported in the story but either one makes a good example. If these are the decisions made in these small countries, how much more impact will there be in one of the largest countries in the world? This, in all probability, will be a daily occurance!
1 person likes this
@rodney850 (2145)
• United States
12 Sep 09
I would also like to propose another scenario: What are the guidlines going to be for the other end of the spectrum? Nobody survives alzheimers, or Lou Gerhigs or a huge number of other maladies. At what point will the doctors be instructed to withhold treatment to these people?
1 person likes this
@spalladino (17891)
• United States
12 Sep 09
What a terribly sad story, Rollo. I have to ask this question though...do you know how any future medical policy will mesh with existing criminal codes in this country? The reason late term abortions are called partial birth is because the baby is killed before it takes that first breath, which is the legal definition of life here. Once you are legally alive you have certain rights under the law. Allowing a breathing premature baby to die without treatment would be a criminal offense.
2 people like this
@Rollo1 (16679)
• Boston, Massachusetts
13 Sep 09
When Obama was in the state legislature, he voted against a bill that would require doctors to render medical assistance to babies that survived abortion. So, don't see that he would have any trouble with this. The medical benefits guidelines will be decided by a panel of 27 members, 18 of which are appointed by the president. 9 of those appointees will also be federal employees, well 10 really because the Surgeon General will be one too. That's 18 to 9 on any issue that would go along with whatever president is in power, one assumes. Now if Obama got term 2, and he managed to get John Holdren and Ezekiel Emanuel on that panel, this scenario doesn't seem unlikely to me.
1 person likes this
@AngryKittyMSV (4317)
• United States
12 Sep 09
A baby born in the United States prematurely is rushed to NICU where it receives specialized care that often saves it's life, it certainly saved the life of MY son, and he was born to poor people but was treated just like any other sick baby and got the same excellent treatment that children of privilege would get.
Ezekiel Emmanuel believes that children under age 15 and adults over age 40 should NOT get the same level of care that those in the preferred demographic should, because they are not seen by him as valued members of society. When and if socialized medicine goes through here, keep in mind what the president's top adviser on healthcare thinks about who should get or be denied treatment. No more NICUs, no more pediatric care for little kids, no cancer treatment for mothers and fathers of small children if they are past the cutoff age. Is this the America people REALLY want to live in? How many libs are past age 40 now? Will they still think this is such a great idea hen THEY can't get a tumor treated or THEIR child is left to die?
1 person likes this
@Rollo1 (16679)
• Boston, Massachusetts
12 Sep 09
Mike, it's only natural to have a certain amount of national pride, but the bottom line is that we in the US believe we have the right to decide what we want.
My husband is British and has experienced health care on both sides of the Atlantic and he is very pleased with his American doctor. He is not afraid to admit the inadequacies of the NHS and does not feel it diminishes his national pride.
1 person likes this
@AngryKittyMSV (4317)
• United States
12 Sep 09
He was TWO DAYS too "young" to qualify for treatment, see my post above about how they can't really be 100% SURE of gestational age! They were off by at least a MONTH for my son! Supposedly he was 2 weeks early, but by his condition the nurses figure he was at least SIX weeks early! He was not breathing when he was born, but they helped him anyway, and now he is a big strong healthy 2 year old. I wonder if he would have been written off as "stillborn" if he had not been born in the States?
The thought of that little baby they forced to die with nothing even offered to ease his suffering after they decided to not help him (when he probably had a good chance for survival) will haunt me for a very long time. Did you see the pictures? They will break your heart.
1 person likes this
@6precious102 (4043)
• United States
14 Sep 09
This is an extremely angering story, but even if you hadn't shared it with us I still would be opposed to government intervention into things that are none of their business. I realize there are a multitude of people who are demanding health care reform, but I wonder how many of them have any idea what they could be getting themselves into. Based on what I've read and heard about socialized medical care in other countries, I can't understand why we're so ready and even eager in some cases to embrace it. And after the government takes over this part of our lives, what will be next on the agenda? Will they start telling us where we have to go to church or what television show we have to watch or radio programs we can listen to or where our children have to go to school? Is our freedom of choice being gradually taken from us because being "safe" has become more satisfying than being free? You may think I'm being extreme, but the camel has gotten his nose in the door and if we're not careful it won't be long before he's in every aspect of our lives and there will be nothing we can do to stop it. Thank goodness there is a remnant of people who are working hard to get the truth out to us.
1 person likes this
@bestboy19 (5478)
• United States
13 Sep 09
Even without this story, the answer to your question is, no. The government has proven they don't have the capacity to do things right. Look at the mess they've made of welfare, Medicare, Medicaid, and schools. Our health is too important to trust to the government.
1 person likes this
@aerous (13434)
• Philippines
14 Sep 09
Nope! Only God, know how's our life being treated as it is. It is not government decide whether we are die or not?
Government should make a law that strengthen the implementation of medical practices. That even no money will allow in a hospital that if people cannot afford the high billings of every hospital. The government should burden the half of the expense...What I see in all private hospital. You need first to down payment before you accept and treated well...
Have a nice day!
@martieann (40)
• United States
12 Sep 09
I don't want any one making those decisions. If we are going to have affordable health care then it should be for everyone. While doctors play "God" every day in many ways, at least they have some medical reasoning for doing so (or so they claim) in cases where there hands are bound by the government or anyone else, it is so much worse.
