I am shocked to realise this. 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. The reasoning goes that it would be unfair to treat a child or otherwise based on whether the parent wants it. Therefore since it is legal to let aborted babies die at this age, it would be unfair to try and save a wanted premature baby at the same age.
THAT IS NUTS. But it happens.
Seems like this point completely skipped the UK House of Commons yesterday when they decided not to lower the date to 20 or 22 weeks. Its a moot point in other countries in Europe where the limit is 12 weeks and therefore any baby born at that age is unviable.
I still think that abortion completely walks over the right to life of the unborn child and so viability is irrelevant, but pragmatically speaking backstreet abortions (or simply going to another country) are worse for everyone, so banning it isn't a good idea, either.
Sad... I thought that there was a jury made by the doctors or something. :-\
Edit: I know for sure that there is a Jury, but don' t know the name in English... Hipocratic, I guess...
That'd be a Hippocratic oath, named after Hippocrates..
Trying not to spark a debate on the right to choose or not... but I can see one happening.
Abortions are a good thing in my opinion. They allow women/girls to get rid of an unplanned baby. A baby is a massive financial and personal commitment. But there are loads of STUPID girls out there getting pregnant and deciding to keep it even though they have NO means to support the child. This creates BROKEN kids who turn into chavs and knife people. There is no reason why the cutoff date is so high. There should be a set standard.
Back in the old times, there weren't many girls getting pregnant at a you age or before marriage. It was unacceptable and it would bring shame to the family.
With all the free love of the 60's and so forth, it became acceptable. And they bought in abortion in 1967.
Many girls in the UK would prefer to have a baby and loose the rest of life due to commitments and continue to feed the single mother plague. And then go on benfits for the rest of their life.
But abortion is there to allow these people a choice. Too bad most of them are too f***ing stupid to make the right choice.
Quote
Many girls in the UK would prefer to have a baby and loose the rest of life due to commitments and continue to feed the single mother plague. And then go on benfits for the rest of their life. But abortion is there to allow these people a choice. Too bad most of them are too f***ing stupid to make the right choice.
Stereotype much?
Edit: Here, have some nice statistics.
Despite media headlines suggesting otherwise, overall, teenage pregnancies have fallen nationally by 9.4 per cent since 1999. In 1970, young women aged 15 to 19 in England and Wales were almost twice as likely to become mothers as they are today. Furthermore, the belief held in some circles that teenagers only get pregnant to get a council house is not backed by facts. Seven out of ten 15 and 16 year old mothers, and around half of 17 and 18-year-old mothers, stay in the family home. (http://www.esrcsocietytoday.ac.uk/ESRCInfoCentre/facts/UK/index40.aspx?ComponentId=12614&SourcePageId=18133)
Here are some more statistics. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teenage_pregnancy_and_sexual_health_in_Britain#Statistics)
Quote from: Layabout on Wed 21/05/2008 14:40:45
Many girls in the UK would prefer to have a baby and loose the rest of life due to commitments and continue to feed the single mother plague. And then go on benfits for the rest of their life.
But abortion is there to allow these people a choice. Too bad most of them are too f***ing stupid to make the right choice.
My nieghboors here are an unmarried couple. I'm pretty sure she's on benefits, since she has a child, and I would imagine that she's not mentioned her "partner"...
Can't say I see much difference between the above and married couple.
What SSH mentions is completely bollocks however and moronic, no doubt there.
I know, how shocking, until two years ago, my parents were receiving benefits for my existence! OH MY GOD.
Oh and they're still getting some for the existence of my sister! HOW DARE THEY.
Heh...
We are also getting child benefits... for both children. Not any huge amount, but still it's there... ;)
But your parents, Becky? Shamefull! Really ;D ;D
I know! Its terrible! Because I thought only slutwhore-teenage-girls got benefits for having children! I didn't realise they gave benefits to EVERYONE with children?!?!
Quote from: Layabout on Wed 21/05/2008 14:40:45
Many girls in the UK would prefer to have a baby and loose the rest of life due to commitments and continue to feed the single mother plague. And then go on benfits for the rest of their life.
But abortion is there to allow these people a choice. Too bad most of them are too f***ing stupid to make the right choice.
Its sad that anyone sees having a baby as losing their life. Personally speaking, its been one of the best things to ever happen to me.
Nice also to see that you blame single mother "plague" on women. Not on the men who don't take responsibility for their part in the whole thing.
And I know two mothers who live only on benefits (and on people's kindness). One is with the father of her children, one is not. And they are both wonderful people who love their kids, give them a great life and education and certainly not chav-producers. My advice, layabout, it to stop reading the Daily Mail.
(I am not arguing here, just make my mind clear, I might be lost in translation)
I probably didn' t get SSH' s original post... But it says that "Doctors are not allowed to help a baby borned before the legal abortion date". That doesn' t mean that if there is a natural abortion, but the fetus is, by some kind of miracle, still alive, law doesn't allow him to make the attempt to save him?
If I understood correctly, that's nuts. In this scenario that fetus could be desired by their parents. The fetus might even be the most desired thing they ever had. In that scenario the fetus might not be desired by his their parents, but they might want to give them to some adoption organization... I don' t think this law just affects voluntary abortions, which should be another discussion...
QuoteBut if a baby is born before the legal abortion date (24 weeks gestation in the UK) then doctors are not allowed to help it.
By the way, SSH, do you have a cite on this? This is the first time I've heard of this...I believe I've heard of a DNR policy being followed for premature babies born beetween 21-23 weeks because the survival rates are so low, but that's all I've heard. I'd be interested to see if the situation is as you describe it - that no doctor assistance is given to babies born before 24 weeks.
Quote from: Becky on Wed 21/05/2008 17:06:40
QuoteBut if a baby is born before the legal abortion date (24 weeks gestation in the UK) then doctors are not allowed to help it.
By the way, SSH, do you have a cite on this? This is the first time I've heard of this...I believe I've heard of a DNR policy being followed for premature babies born beetween 21-23 weeks because the survival rates are so low, but that's all I've heard. I'd be interested to see if the situation is as you describe it - that no doctor assistance is given to babies born before 24 weeks.
I was looking for it earlier on the BBC News Have Your Say but couldn't locate it. I hope I didn't imagine it! Or rather, I hope I did. The mother in question IIRC said that she had a baby at 23 weeks and it survived 2 hours after birth but no assistance was given during those 2 hours, apparently for the reasons mentioned.
What's the difference between that and "Do Not Resuscitate" policies?
Nacho, yes, I think you understood me correctly.
Just a word of warning, I'd take anything written on the BBC News Have Your Say site with a whole bucketload of salt. Some of the most ignorant, misogynistic, reprehensible comments I've ever seen on the Internet I've witnessed there. (I try not to read it any more because it makes my head hurt.) I'm not saying its not true, but unless I see some sort of BMA statement on the matter to that effect I personally cannot "believe" it.
Do I have to spell out the difference between DNR (no resuscitation after cardiac or respiratory arrest) and absolutely no medical assistance towards survival whatsoever (such as incubators or whatever)? Even then, I have to admit that I think I may have read something, but I'm not sure if it was "this is what happens" or "this is what is proposed", and I can't seem to find it on the internet either. Maybe I was imagining it! I certainly don't agree with such a policy of medical abandonment, if that were the case.
Oh, on the other side, Ross, I know who Hippocrates was, along with Galeno and Ibn-Sina, I just didn' t know if "Hippocratic oath" had some kind of meaning in English.
Sounds like rubbish to me.
Most doctors are doctors because they want to save lives. No way they would stand idly by while a child dies because it's the law.
Quote from: Becky on Wed 21/05/2008 17:29:50
Just a word of warning, I'd take anything written on the BBC News Have Your Say site with a whole bucketload of salt.
The BBC Have Your Say pages make me realise just how stupid and ignorant the general public are.
It's no wonder that politicians ignore everything that the public want them to do.
Where I come from the child must be no more than 12 weeks old to be aborted by choise. With a juridically ok excuse, it's 20, and 24 goes only if there's some medical problem with the baby that might result to it being born handicapped or so.
But reading on it, it says pretty clearly, that it is considered a spontaneous abortion here, if the baby, or perhaps in this case the fetus is less than 22 weeks old and weighs no more than 500grams. It says here, where I'm reading, that basically at this point the fetus is considered dead. Or not exactly, but they don't mention, that it would be alive anymore. The word for it is miscarriage, I think. And they say, that the small minority that might not be dead as they are, can only be saved theoretically with the modern ways...
I'm not sure what to say. It feels silly to let a live fetus die... But in a sense it's most probably bound to die anyway. I don't mean like treating an HIV patient. Would you consider someone less than 22 weeks old a human being already? Apparently some don't. I'd preferrably say nothing to this since I lack expertise, but the way they explain it, it's practically a miscarriage, so...
My thoughts:
1. What SSH wrote is outrageous and probably not true.
2. Aborting babies should be allowed.
This is such a worn out topic that I can hardly bother to elaborate more...
Quote from: SSH on Wed 21/05/2008 12:29:09
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?
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
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
Perhaps the goverment should sterlize anyone who lives in or near Wales?
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.
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.
Quote from: Pumaman on Wed 21/05/2008 19:59:35
Quote from: SSH on Wed 21/05/2008 12:29:09
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...