Quote:
Originally Posted by honeychile
That's the same mindset I have - if a baby is viable at ? weeks and is wanted, there will be hundreds of thousands of dollars spent to keep that child alive. However, if that same baby isn't wanted, it's treated as biohazard material.
IMHO, it's two standards. This is either a child or not. There are measures taken to save a life or not. There shouldn't be an option of being wanted or not.
I had a friend whose wife delivered at 22 weeks, and the child is fine - now. They went through a year of hundreds of thousands of dollars for his care, and he became a March of Dimes poster boy. So, when I hear of a child being placed in a biohazard bag "coffin", please forgive me for shaking my head. I hope I never do understand that sort of logic.
|
I have to doubt the 22 week number. That is the limit of our medical ability to save premature babies. I also have to mention that treating a premature baby is up to the parents. If the mother refuses treatment, the baby will not be resuscitated. Does that happen often? No, because those women want their babies. Is it wrong to refuse to give consent to treat a severely premature baby since the outcome is most often very poor? In my opinion it is not. If I had a premature baby at 22 weeks, after seeing what happens to these babies, I would choose to let the baby die. Sometimes what can be done is not the same as what should be done.
Threaded Mode
