Premature babies

[Layabout]

I spent a couple of years in Gloucester. That is where my spiteful comments about Single Chav mothers come from.

I did not say that men were not also responsible. They are. But not fully. If a man runs away when his girlfriend or whatever tells him that she is pregnant, the girl has a right to choose. And alot will still choose to have teh baby even though they can't support it.

When I said 'recieving benefits' i was implying 'living off nothing but benefits'.

I just object to those who get pregnant and have kids when they have no means to support the damn thing. Like those 15 year old kids you read about in the Daily Mail! :p

[Pumaman]

It's not just teenage mothers who do that -- it's the whole of Wales!!
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article1178294.ece

[SSH]

Perhaps the goverment should sterlize anyone who lives in or near Wales?

[evenwolf]

Yeah I doubt SSH's post is a *fact*

Might need a tad more research there.  My friend Zach was born premature.   He's got cerebral palsey which means he lacks motor skills for his legs and some of the dexterity in his hands.   I dunno, this sounds more like word of mouth rubbish to me.  Wouldn't bring this up in actual conversation unless I got the facts straight.

[Quintaros]

There is controversy in Canada regarding an "Unborn Victims of Crime Act":  http://www.arcc-cdac.ca/fetal_homicide_law.html

"The Supreme Court has ruled that a woman and her fetus are considered "physically one” person under the law (Dobson vs. Dobson), and that all rights accrue to the woman. If we give any legal rights to a fetus, we must automatically remove some rights from women, because it’s impossible for two beings occupying the same body to enjoy full rights."

In the case of premature babies, they have separated from their mothers' bodies and therefore instantly attain their own rights so there would be no issue for medical care.

[Andail]

But if a baby is born before the legal abortion date (24 weeks gestation in the UK) then doctors are not allowed to help it.

Whilst this is probably not true, it does raise an alternative question -- should doctors always be forced to help people even when it's not the best thing to do? For example an old man in his 90's, pretty much a vegetable with no quality of life; yet by law the doctors have to keep him alive on a plethora of machines. Is this fair on him, or on them?

In reality, doctors and caregivers have always been forced to keep a balance between resources spent and expected gains.

There is no law (at least not in most countries) to "keep him alive on a plethora of machines" if he's 90 years old and dying. After a while a decision will be taken, between doctors and family, to de-escalate the life-supporting machines.

Having worked in lots of places where people spend their last days, I've witnessed on numerous occasions how doctors and nurses eventually have decided that a certain caretaker's life is "over", and this is typically when they cannot support themselves in any way (neither breath nor eat or drink) and are unconscious, upon which the doctors cease to provide drip and oxygen and just let nature take its course.

After this point, the elderly in question is left with a relative, or a designated "watcher" (I've had this position a couple of times) to just hold their hand and keep their mouth moist with cottonpads soaked in water, and then all you do is wait for the breath that will be their last.

Only if a person is not dying more or less directly because of sheer age, you talk about euthanasia, and that's another, much more complicated issue...