RSS
Home
Part 1: The effect of Obama's health care reform plan on premature births
Print
Email
RSS
Subscribe
.jpg)
This is Part 1 in a multi-part series examining the effects of the health care reform plan on individual groups and aspects of America.
As near as can be determined, HR 3200 does not specifically address the treatment or withholding of treatment of premature babies. Obama's speech to Congress, however, gives us a clue. In addressing Medicare waste, he said this:
And we will also create an independent commission of doctors and medical experts charged with identifying more waste in the years ahead.
This innocuous statement, as well as other vague language in HR 3200 itself, leaves the door open for further guidelines down the road.
To see what “the waste” could refer to regarding premature births, we look to the model drawn up by our British cousins.
The guidance, drawn up by the Nuffield Council, is not compulsory but advises doctors that medical intervention for babies born at less than 23 weeks is not in the best interests of the baby, and is not 'standard practice.' Unstated is that it's also very costly and "wasteful."
Their publication is based on a UK-wide study done in 1995, which states the survival rate of babies born at specific points in a pregnancy:
- 22-23 weeks: 1%
- 23-24 weeks 11%
- 24-25 weeks 26%
- 25-26 weeks 44%
They do note, however, that “the age at which they can survive has dropped by about one week for every decade in the past 40 years.”
Nonetheless, “… the medical guidelines for Health Service hospitals state that babies should not be given intensive care if they are born at less than 23 weeks.”
They also published the likelihood of premature babies having disabilities, apparently a major determining factor in whether a baby should receive lifesaving health care.
So what does this mean to a pregnant mother who goes into labor prematurely? It means that, if her baby is born at 21 weeks and 5 days, he will be ignored and left to die. Sarah Capewell has gone public and is trying to change the system in Britain, because that's what happened to her baby, pictured above.
Despite the fact that he was breathing unaided, had a strong heartbeat and was even moving his arms and legs, medics refused to admit him to a special care baby unit. Here are some excerpts from her story:
- She said she was told that because she had not reached 22 weeks, she was not allowed injections to try to stop the labour, or a steroid injection to help to strengthen her baby's lungs. Instead, doctors told her to treat the labour as a miscarriage, not a birth, and to expect her baby to be born with serious deformities or even to be still-born.
- A midwife said he was breathing and had a strong heartbeat, and described him as a "little fighter".
- I kept asking for the doctors but the midwife said, "They won't come and help, sweetie. Make the best of the time you have with him".'
- She told how she begged one paediatrician, 'You have got to help', only for the man to respond: 'No we don't.'
- As her contractions continued, a chaplain arrived at her bedside to discuss bereavement and planning a funeral, she claims. She said: 'I was sitting there, reading this leaflet about planning a funeral and thinking, this is my baby, he isn't even born yet, let alone dead.'
- After his death she even had to argue with hospital officials for her right to receive birth and death certificates, which meant she could give her son a proper funeral.
Contrast this story with that of Amilla Taylor, born at 21 weeks and six days in Miami in 2007. Granted, the doctors believed the pregnancy was farther along, but Amilla, who would have been left to die in Britian, is home. In her mother's words:
I don't want the miracle of Amillia's birth to be overtaken by the abortion debate in America and the UK. But I do want the world to see how cheeky, happy, normal and loved she is, and hopefully this will persuade doctors to give other tiny babies the chance of life.
Or read the story of James Elgin Gill, born at 21 weeks and 5 days – in 1987. He's now an “avid rugby player.”
Or even read my own story. In 1981, my son was born at 33 weeks – not a record, certainly, but at 3 lbs. 11 oz, he was still very tiny, and required three weeks of hospitalization, for which I am eternally grateful. He now stands about six feet tall, and is all a son should be.
If medical techniques are to improve so that smaller and smaller babies can be saved – gaining one week in every ten years, as we have for the last forty years - then doctors have to be allowed to try.
Regardless of the odds, regardless of 'standard medical practice,' regardless of the “waste” or potential for disabilities, some premature babies are destined to live and should be given that opportunity. No government “insurance” plan should deny them that opportunity.
No baby who is born alive should be left to die.
Related Articles:
Comments
