Owen Barritt (hmmm_tea) wrote,
Owen Barritt
hmmm_tea

Doing Nothing For Premature Babies

'Do not revive' earliest babies

I was amazed when I heard this on the radio this morning. They actually want to put an arbitrary cut off point on how old a premature baby is before it will deemed capable of surviving?

OK, a baby that young is very unlikely to survive, but surely it should be given a chance?

Also, doctors aren't infallible what if they get it wrong and the baby is actually older? How can you put such a rigid cut off point on assisting a baby's chance for life?

I may disagree with it, but I could understand a suggestion of putting babies so young that they are unlikely to survive out of their misery, but they don't even want to do that.

How can doing nothing be the best solution? Surely it has to be a case of giving the baby the best chance of life we can (which I personally think we should do) or, if we are going to rule out any possibility that they are going to survive, of taking actions to shorten any suffering?
Subscribe

  • Everything You Ever Wanted To Know About Playing Clarinets to Whales

    Ever wondered if Humpback Whales like Clarinet music? Thankfully Dr David Rothenberg of the New Jersey Institute of Technology may have found the…

  • Music 2010

    Given everyone at this time of year posts about their best films, music, books, etc, suppose I'd best follow the flock. This is apparently what I've…

  • Music Meme

    Given I quite often just put all my music on random play, this should be fairly easy: Turn on your MP3 player or music player on your computer. Go…

  • Post a new comment

    Error

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.
  • 4 comments