5 replies to this topic

[Kaddict]

In class we talked about a theoretical situation in which a women was 34 weeks pregnant with a baby who was diagnose with trisomy 13. This usually causes a spontaneous abortion, but many children can be born with it. When they are born, they have severe physical and mental defects. Nearly all die within 6 months of birth (usually the only ones who survive longer have mosaic trisomy, but that is a different topic). The parents wanted to do EVERYTHING for their baby. Surgery, intubation etc. Surgeries carry a risk of killing the baby, and don't always extend their life. Do you think there is a point when the doctor/hospital/someone should say no, enough is enough? Or should they always proceed with the parent's will?

And does it change your opinion if they are paying for it, or if the government is paying for it? (maybe I am mixing too many topics here)
Anyway, I thought it would be interesting to get your opinion on it. Almost an opposite of abortion case.

[Bee]

I reckon that yes, it's possible to have too much medical intervention. With a lot of my experience though, it's more the parents saying no to what the doctors recommend than the other way around.

 

At the Trust I work for, we had a baby come in with severe stridor and vomiting. The baby had gastro-oesophageal reflux disease which was secondary to tracheomalacia. A MLB was done and this child had 100% obstruction of the airway and an unsafe swallow (this is a baby that was being bottle-fed). The doctors told mum they'd have to perform a tracheostomy, he'd need home oxygen, continuous feeds and all sorts. Mum said no, all she'd agree to was the feeds, continuous saturation monitoring and oxygen just in case. Fast forward to 6 months later, and the baby is now starting to say some words, and the airway is opening up slightly. This child would have been stuck with a trachy for at least two years, if mum had not refused.

 

Of course, this is not always the case and some kids do get a lot worse without further medical intervention. But there should come a time where you weigh the need for further interventions against quality of life and the pain the child will go through.

[Romy]

I'm on the fence.

 

The only thing I'm going to say is that I should have been a stillborn but my mom decided not to abort me.

 

Edit: Docs said she should abort me since I'd be born dead. She decided to continue into her third trimester. I was born healthy however.

[Kaddict]

Of course, this is not always the case and some kids do get a lot worse without further medical intervention. But there should come a time where you weigh the need for further interventions against quality of life and the pain the child will go through.

Ya, this is how I feel. If going through surgeries and being intubated for 6 months keeps you alive for 2 extra months, I don't feel it is worth it. I think just spend three months with your child, rather than being in the hospital. But, I haven't been in that situation, so it is tough to say.

 

I'm on the fence.

 

The only thing I'm going to say is that I should have been a stillborn but my mom decided not to abort me.

 

Edit: Docs said she should abort me since I'd be born dead. She decided to continue into her third trimester. I was born healthy however.

Wow, that is really neat. Good for her.

[NapisaurusRex]

And does it change your opinion if they are paying for it, or if the government is paying for it? (maybe I am mixing too many topics here)

Why would this matter?

[Kaddict]

Why would this matter?

To many people it doesn't. But some people think "If they pay for it, they can do what they want, but if the tax payers are paying for it, it should be more limited." But then we get into a debate about what people purchase with WIC and welfare in general.