Quote:
Originally posted by honeychile
Here's part of my problem: Friends of mine had a baby delivered at 22 weeks. He spent the first year of his life in the hospital, at the cost of well of $100,000 per day. I'm happy to say that he's healthy & happy at this time!
Yet, if this same child had been unwanted, he would have been nothing but spare parts.
So, how do we decide when a child is a child and not a fetus? When the expentant mother decides it's a child? Or by another method?
|
Again, I'm not really taking a position either way. However, your figure there is GROSSLY overstated when I compare it to what I've been able to look up on the
www.
http://www.muhc.ca/media/ensemble/2002june/premature/
The meat of the article relating to your figure is found in this excerpt:
"Treating an extremely premature baby, who is very sick, can cost up to $100,000. But while the figure is staggering, it needs perspective. Barrington submits that it is less costly than a year on dialysis or a heart transplant. Furthermore, it provides the baby with the potential for a lifetime. Barrington says the cost per extra year of life gained is less than that found in just about any other area of acute care medicine. In his opinion, the promising outcome of interventions at the NICU-the survival rate, the quality of life, and the life expectancy-justify the costs. "
So in other words, a WORST CASE sick 22-week baby can still be cared for with an overall cost of UP TO $100,000. I don't know where your friend got $100,00 per day, it would seem unlikely that any hospital would charge someone 3 million dollars for a premie.
And, as far as risks to the mother, I found a little info there as well (questionable sources though).
here's the article:
http://www.abortionfacts.com/online_...rth%20abortion
Here's the excerpt:
"Dr. Pamela Smith, Director of Medical Education, Dept. of Ob-Gyn at Mt. Sinai Hospital in Chicago, has stated: "There are absolutely no obstetrical situations encountered in this country which would require partial- birth abortion to preserve the life or health of the mother." And she adds two more risks: cervical incompetence in subsequent pregnancies caused by three days of forceful dilation of the cervix, and uterine rupture caused by rotating the fetus in the womb. Joseph DeCook, Fellow, Am. Col., Ob/Gyn, founder of PHACT (Physicians Ad Hoc Coalition for Truth), stated: "There is no literature that testifies to the safety of partial birth abortions. It’s a maverick procedure devised by maverick doctors who wish to deliver a dead fetus. Such abortions could lead to infection causing sterility." Also, "Drawing out the baby in breech position is a very dangerous procedure and could tear the uterus. Such a ruptured uterus could cause the mother to bleed to death in ten minutes.".."The puncturing of the child’s skull produces bone shards that could puncture the uterus." (Congressman Charles Canady (R-FL), 7/23). "
IF TRUE, what this doctor says is essentially that she's never heard of any kind of situation where a partial birth abortion being performed can make things easier on a mother that was expecting complications.
---
If the above information is correct, I really don't see a reason to do this procedure. If there is no way that the mother could lose her life or suffer a serious injury, I don't see that as even a remotely possible justification.
The question that I ask in formulating my opinion on this topic is "When is a person a person". It seems a logical way to answer that would be "Whenever a child stands a good chance of survival outside of the womb". I think in America, where we have all this medical technology available, it would be a crime to NOT give a perfectly helpless and innocent person a medical treatment that they needed to survive. The first article justifies the cost beautifully. As far as years added to life vs. dollars spent, one would be hard pressed to find a better ratio than what you'd get with even the most serious case of premature baby care.