why is everyone so stuck on saving babies?

[typeB-md]

work with me here...

why do we try and come up with cures for all of these birth defects and try and maintain 20 week premature babies who have a super small chance or no chance of surviving without intervention.. why do we insist on finding a way for these children to live rather than just saying "hey, this is not the way nature intended it to be, let's let this child go so that he will never know a tormented childhood and short life"

why do we insist on trying to keep these otherwise unhealthy babies around. it seems that we do more harm because in the long run they will have a crappy quality of life, they will know they have a crappy quality of life, and eventually they will die earlier than other normal people?

why can't we just let these abnormalities rest in peace rather than try and artificially prevent death in a seemingly un-selected individual?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[automaton]

yeah let's sail grandma down the river too

 

[hidingOUT]

yeah let's sail grandma down the river too

I'm not sure this is a great analogy. The surgeon who invented the shunting technique that kept his baby with spina bifida alive was later sued by his son- over the right to die vs. live a life filled with suffering. I think this was one of the first "wrongful life" lawsuits.

 

[Tallguy]

work with me here...

why do we try and come up with cures for all of these birth defects and try and maintain 20 week premature babies who have a super small chance or no chance of surviving without intervention.. why do we insist on finding a way for these children to live rather than just saying "hey, this is not the way nature intended it to be, let's let this child go so that he will never know a tormented childhood and short life"

why do we insist on trying to keep these otherwise unhealthy babies around. it seems that we do more harm because in the long run they will have a crappy quality of life, they will know they have a crappy quality of life, and eventually they will die earlier than other normal people?

why can't we just let these abnormalities rest in peace rather than try and artificially prevent death in a seemingly un-selected individual?

If only the physicians had this idea when "your" mother was pregnant...

 

[typeB-md]

yeah let's sail grandma down the river too

i'm surprised you're not working for boeing with such superior logistical skills.

and grandma can choose to do whatever she likes.. that's not my decision. if i ever had a kid with Down's, spina bifida, 20 weeks premature, cerebral palsy, maybe even type 1 diabetes... i'd rather let the child die so that he didn't have to know a life filled with torture.

these children with debilitating defects really are sad to see. why not just let the child pass on as obviously there is some genetic abnormality or birth abnormality... why must we insist on putting so much time and money into saving babies that otherwise serve no purpose and would have 0 chance of survival if not for us wanting to play god.

is it really better that we can save the premature baby who then grows up mentally ******ed? even if we can use genetics to somewhat alter the embryo or fetus, why not just have another baby?

 

[renox9]

I could identify with your point until you said "saving babies that otherwise serve no purpose..."

That's just plain whack.

 

[typeB-md]

If only the physicians had this idea when your mother was pregnant...

i fixed your statement for you. "Italics for Emphasis:
Words may be italicized when they would be stressed if spoken. Italics are especially appropriate if the emphasis would be lost when written"

for more information, please see: http://www.publication.com/aylad/punctuation2.htm

Now onto the actual meaning of your statement...

i was only 1 week premature, and i did not require any extra interventions. had i been born in the woods or the hospital, i would've been A-OK. BUT, even if i had been let to die as i was premature, i would not be here to even discuss this issue, nor ever know any cognizance.. thus, it is moot to even discuss such an issue.

but if i was born with some disability, i would rather have not been born than have to deal with it and never know a normal life.

 

[typeB-md]

I could identify with your point until you said "saving babies that otherwise serve no purpose..."

That's just plain whack.

please provide an explanation, seeing as this is how a debate would normally ensue.

 

[typeB-md]

I'm not sure this is a great analogy. The surgeon who invented the shunting technique that kept his baby with spina bifida alive was later sued by his son- over the right to die vs. live a life filled with suffering. I think this was one of the first "wrongful life" lawsuits.

this is the point i'm trying to make. is it really better to go around saving every baby just because you can?

 

[gaf]

until you give your examples.

Downs? Oh the horror!

On the other hand, Type I DM, now that is horrible. The lifetime of needlesticks and thinking about what one eats is positively dreadful.

<For the sarcasm detection impaired: the above is an example.>

 

[tinkerbelle]

but if i was born with some disability, i would rather have not been born than have to deal with it and never know a normal life.

Who decides which disabilities are ok and which disabilities are not worth living with? And some people with disabilities can live normal lives.

 

[tigress]

Yeah, I could imagine a reasonable discussion about the issue until I read the examples given. You don't really think that people with diabetes would rather not be alive?! I have some of the same feelings about saving extremely premature babies, but in general I think it's not our place to make life or death decisions when we have medical intervention available. And I'm not talking from a religious perspective, I mean that plenty of people with the problems you have listed live happy lives and are a benefit to society. We just don't know what the outcome is going to be in most cases, so we do whatever we can to help them.

I had a classmate in high school who was born hydrocephalic and had a shunt. She was often ill and had terrible headaches, and was tutored much of the time. But I talked to her once about her quality of life, and she said she was very happy to be alive. She had great talent as an artist and many goals.

Perhaps you should hang out with Peter Singer. At least some people consider his ideas legitimate. I think they're scary, though.

 

[typeB-md]

until you give your examples.

Downs? Oh the horror!

On the other hand, Type I DM, now that is horrible. The lifetime of needlesticks and thinking about what one eats is positively dreadful.

<For the sarcasm detection impaired: the above is an example.>

i already gave my example...

what is the downside to allowing these babies to die?

also, why is it so much better to try and genetically engineer a solution to the baby's problem rather than just let the baby die so that nature can fix its own problem?

 

[typeB-md]

Yeah, I could imagine a reasonable discussion about the issue until I read the examples given. You don't really think that people with diabetes would rather not be alive?! I have some of the same feelings about saving extremely premature babies, but in general I think it's not our place to make life or death decisions when we have medical intervention available. And I'm not talking from a religious perspective, I mean that plenty of people with the problems you have listed live happy lives and are a benefit to society. We just don't know what the outcome is going to be in most cases, so we do whatever we can to help them.

I had a classmate in high school who was born hydrocephalic and had a shunt. She was often ill and had terrible headaches, and was tutored much of the time. But I talked to her once about her quality of life, and she said she was very happy to be alive. She had great talent as an artist and many goals.

Perhaps you should hang out with Peter Singer. At least some people consider his ideas legitimate. I think they're scary, though.

what is the disadvantage of allowing a baby with type I DM to die? if a parent thought it was the better decision to not have to have teh baby deal with it? It's not like insulin was made to be externally available.

and i disagree with the statement of yours that i bolded. you say you think it's not our place... yet medical intervention is something we concocted. and as we speak, further interventions are being researched. this the whole thing i'm trying to understand... why would me make more interventions when nature is obviously saying "i flubbed up, why not give it another shot rather than poorly fix my mistake?"

and i am not familiar with Peter Singer, are you able to tell me what his arena is?

 

[AStudent]

 

[automaton]

i'm surprised you're not working for boeing with such superior logistical skills.

and grandma can choose to do whatever she likes.. that's not my decision. if i ever had a kid with Down's, spina bifida, 20 weeks premature, cerebral palsy, maybe even type 1 diabetes... i'd rather let the child die so that he didn't have to know a life filled with torture.

these children with debilitating defects really are sad to see. why not just let the child pass on as obviously there is some genetic abnormality or birth abnormality... why must we insist on putting so much time and money into saving babies that otherwise serve no purpose and would have 0 chance of survival if not for us wanting to play god.

is it really better that we can save the premature baby who then grows up mentally ******ed? even if we can use genetics to somewhat alter the embryo or fetus, why not just have another baby?

cut the paternalism. that kid with spina bifida that you want killed just happened to grow up and become the chair of neurosurgery at a top ten medical school. so while you're picking your nose and pondering your utopia, consider that not everyone has to be perfect to enjoy life.

ps: a 20 week premature baby has no chance at survival anyway. better hit the books son.

 

[typeB-md]

What in the heck is this crap you posted in my thread?

Can a mod please delete this unneccessarily large picture?

rather than post your picture, why don't you give my question some real thought? Why is it so much better to try and intervene with malformations rather than just let them abort/die and allow nature to fix its own mistakes?

 

[14022]

TypeB, I have read many of your posts and I still cannot find any reason why you chose to go into medicine. You seem to have no compassion for the sanctity of life. Your question asks why do we save these babies. You claim the quality of life is poor. First, you have no idea what their quality of life is as you have not ever spent a moment in their shoes. Second, if you truly see no purpose in intervening when quality of life is poor, whose quality of life are you seeking to improve? Healthy people do not seek doctors. So when people go on dialysis, which to me seems very inconvenient, should we just let them die as well? When people are born with sickle cell or cystic fibrosis or some immunodeficiency and are doomed to life of pain, respiratory ailments, and infections, respectively, should we not intervene in their life either? And why not expand to other issues, such as homelessness and poverty? These people have pretty poor quality of life. Should health care not be provided to them because it just prolongs their difficult existence?

What you do not realize is that if you ever had the unfortunate experience of suffering some life threatening injury, you would never tolerate some stranger physician in the ER making decisions based on what he thinks would result in an acceptable quality of life afterwards.

 

[automaton]

When she was 2 years old, doctors at Columbia Presbyterian Hospital in New York actually wrote in her medical chart that her prognosis was "dreadful" and "unfortunate" -- a fact she found out more than 20 years later while she was serving as the chief neurosurgery resident at the same hospital.

"I don't think I turned out so unfortunate," she said. "There's an old adage about the three ways you can view your abilities: The way you see yourself, the way the world sees you and the way you are. I've always tried to keep that in mind and not conform to the way the world sees me."

http://www.detnews.com/2004/business/0411/26/B01-16421.htm

 

[typeB-md]

cut the paternalism. that kid with spina bifida that you want killed just happened to grow up and become the chair of neurosurgery at a top ten medical school. so while you're picking your nose and pondering your utopia, consider that not everyone has to be perfect to enjoy life.

ps: a 20 week premature baby has no chance at survival anyway. better hit the books son.

so then if they are not needing to be perfect, why is there so much $$ going into researching genetic engineering at the embryo and fetal level?

and maybe we need introduction to the word "hyperbole"

 

[renox9]

hey Type-B, I just meant that you can't claim a child will serve no purpose in their lifetime just because they are disabled. Just like someone stated above, who knows what a baby with spina bifida could grow up to accomplish. Even if that child doesn't become some amazing contributor to society, they could still serve a large purpose in their family and those around them. That's all I meant when I said your statement was a bit whack. I think your point is valid, but the way you're presenting it is coming off a bit harsh.

 

[typeB-md]

TypeB, I have read many of your posts and I still cannot find any reason why you chose to go into medicine. You seem to have no compassion for the sanctity of life. Your question asks why do we save these babies. You claim the quality of life is poor. First, you have no idea what their quality of life is as you have not ever spent a moment in their shoes. Second, if you truly see no purpose in intervening when quality of life is poor, whose quality of life are you seeking to improve? Healthy people do not seek doctors. So when people go on dialysis, which to me seems very inconvenient, should we just let them die as well? When people are born with sickle cell or cystic fibrosis or some immunodeficiency and are doomed to life of pain, respiratory ailments, and infections, respectively, should we not intervene in their life either? And why not expand to other issues, such as homelessness and poverty? These people have pretty poor quality of life. Should health care not be provided to them because it just prolongs their difficult existence?

What you do not realize is that if you ever had the unfortunate experience of suffering some life threatening injury, you would never tolerate some stranger physician in the ER making decisions based on what he thinks would result in an acceptable quality of life afterwards.

adults can decide for themselves if they want dialysis or not, and you obviously can't tell a living adult that they must die.

what i am referring to is exactly your case with anemia or CF in which there is much research trying to figure out how to reverse the genetic abnormalities. What is the purpose of this research? If the babies were allowed to die, we would effectively solve this problem of dealing with treatments. These babies would not know that they were doomed to a severly shortened life filled with much dispair.

 

[typeB-md]

http://www.detnews.com/2004/business/0411/26/B01-16421.htm

do they say what her spinal defect is?

 

[typeB-md]

hey Type-B, I just meant that you can't claim a child will serve no purpose in their lifetime just because they are disabled. Just like someone stated above, who knows what a baby with spina bifida could grow up to accomplish. Even if that child doesn't become some amazing contributor to society, they could still serve a large purpose in their family and those around them. That's all I meant when I said your statement was a bit whack. I think your point is valid, but the way you're presenting it is coming off a bit harsh.

i agree, you can't claim they will serve no purpose. and i'm not talking about disabled. i'm talking about birth defects that are incompatible if occuring naturally or result in a very shortned life span.

we have so much money being put toward researching how to cure what nature is saying doesn't belong. why shouldn't it be left up to the parents whether or not they would want a baby that was defect free (i.e. would have been born under natural conditions, without external inteventions).

and i'm not talking about something like spina bifida occulta which is obviously not a naturally 'incompatible' ailment.

 

[automaton]

do they say what her spinal defect is?

like i mentioned before it's spina bifida.

look you can say the same thing about someone with a stroke who goes into a coma. you let them die so what's the problem. it's not like they're in pain or anything. why bring them back and watch them with speech and motor problems? we have a bunch of baby boomers waiting to take their spot anyway, right? sure their parents will miss them but they probably have 3 other grandparents anyway, plus their own mother and father are getting old and soon they'll look just like ol' grandpappy.

people have different priorities than you do. some obviously choose to abort, some choose not to. if doctors didn't try to help those who ARE born, then their lives would be worse than it has to be. it's not for you to decide.

 

[ottwar]

I know its not the same thing, but it smacks dangerously of eugenics.

You could argue that it doesn't seem humane to keep these babies/children alive, but it much more humane to give a person the opportunity of life. I don't know what the current progress is right now in terms of research, but some people are working hard out there to make headway and improvements in solutions for these kids. You could argue that its better for them now than it was in the past. Progress will be made and hopefully we can do our duty as doctors to help the weak.

 

[AStudent]

 

[dmitrinyr]

To the OP, it is not nor should it be the doctor's job to decide which "debilitating" disease or patient we should save and which should be "let go and die naturally, (i.e. "let them be"). This is a whole different issue when dealing with elderly patients who are in tremendous pain and prolonging their agony just to prove that you can do so isn't always smart and logical and sometimes it's the best thing for all the parties (especially the patient) to give them pain meds and lets them be confortable in the final hours.

This is really a tough issue, because on one side: If you say, "I think as doctors we should save every premature baby and one with every congenital disease know to man" then you're pushing the limits of saving babies who haven't developed and might not ever develop appropriately and fully enough to have a full, meaningful life. But how's to judge what is the definition of a "full and meaningful life". Some peolple mights say that a paraplegic will never be able to have a "full and meaningful lfe" but then many people with such paralysis or other debilitating disease end up living long lives filled with accomplishments and joy dealing with what they were given in life.

On the other side: If you say, "we should let the premature babies of a certain age and babies with other diseases die because they wouldn't have a good life and "weren't meant to be"". Then you're just playing God and that is not your place.

I hope this make sense to you all. I leave this post with a personal story:

I was born in Russia at 28 weeks of gestation along with my twin brother. We were extremely small with a plethra of medical problems. At birth most of the doctors gave up on us and treated us more like a teaching case rather than a case that they could help. They gave us a 2% chance of survival and a 0% chance of normal development. If it wasn't for one doctor who was determined to save us, I don't think I'd be here writing this email. Anyway, it is because of this one doctor that I am here (normal and healthy, I might add along with my brother) attending medical school and my brother working on wall street.

This was 24 years ago in russia and they told us that we were "not meant to live" and called us "aborts". Today, a baby of 28 weeks of pregnancy has much better chances of surviving that I was given. Therefore, you never know, maybe medicine will find a way to have premature babies of 20 weeks live a "full and meaningful life" filled with accomplishments and happiness.

Basically my overall message is "don't play God". It's not your place.

dmitri

 

[scootad.]

I agree with the OP about the most extreme examples - e.g. those severely premature babies w/ life expectancies of <10 yrs or the CP pt with zero quality of life. They didn't ask to be born.

This debate and dialogues like this is healthy & much needed. We dont talk about this stuff in med school. For those immature turds who feel the need to post stupid pictures, that just shows how stupid you are, you have no intelligent thoughts of your own to contribute. You guys are the true trolls.

 

[typeB-md]

like i mentioned before it's spina bifida.

look you can say the same thing about someone with a stroke who goes into a coma. you let them die so what's the problem. it's not like they're in pain or anything. why bring them back and watch them with speech and motor problems? we have a bunch of baby boomers waiting to take their spot anyway, right? sure their parents will miss them but they probably have 3 other grandparents anyway, plus their own mother and father are getting old and soon they'll look just like ol' grandpappy.

people have different priorities than you do. some obviously choose to abort, some choose not to. if doctors didn't try to help those who ARE born, then their lives would be worse than it has to be. it's not for you to decide.

am i mistaken by thinking that spina bifida is a vague umbrella term that covers several types of open canal ailments?

the difference with the stroke patient is that they are already living and cognizant of life. a newborn baby doesn't have the capacity to understand anything, thus, allowing this baby to die before it can experience suffering may be viewed as more "humane."

i understand people have different priorities. but as it is now, mothers do not have teh option of letting their premature baby or genetically defected baby die.

and i agree, it's 100% not for me to decide. by why shouldn't the option be there? (i could argue that it is not for you to decide whether or not the option is available)

 

[typeB-md]

I know its not the same thing, but it smacks dangerously of eugenics.

You could argue that it doesn't seem humane to keep these babies/children alive, but it much more humane to give a person the opportunity of life. I don't know what the current progress is right now in terms of research, but some people are working hard out there to make headway and improvements in solutions for these kids. You could argue that its better for them now than it was in the past. Progress will be made and hopefully we can do our duty as doctors to help the weak.

this case illustrates my point.

there already exists a solution... the natural solution is death. i'm not trying to troll, but really i don't see why admitting that nature made a "bad" child is hard to accept? isn't it better that nature senses its mistake and tries to correct the problem?

and you are correct that people are working hard to find solutions. But why is this so much of a better option then allowing nature to re-work itself? This seems to be a timeless solution. It is AS good now as it WAS back 200 years ago... if it doesn't work, nature seems to have its own way of dealing with it... why are we trying so hard to fight this?

 

[typeB-md]

To the OP, it is not nor should it be the doctor's job to decide which "debilitating" disease or patient we should save and which should be "let go and die naturally, (i.e. "let them be"). This is a whole different issue when dealing with elderly patients who are in tremendous pain and prolonging their agony just to prove that you can do so isn't always smart and logical and sometimes it's the best thing for all the parties (especially the patient) to give them pain meds and lets them be confortable in the final hours.

This is really a tough issue, because on one side: If you say, "I think as doctors we should save every premature baby and one with every congenital disease know to man" then you're pushing the limits of saving babies who haven't developed and might not ever develop appropriately and fully enough to have a full, meaningful life. But how's to judge what is the definition of a "full and meaningful life". Some peolple mights say that a paraplegic will never be able to have a "full and meaningful lfe" but then many people with such paralysis or other debilitating disease end up living long lives filled with accomplishments and joy dealing with what they were given in life.

On the other side: If you say, "we should let the premature babies of a certain age and babies with other diseases die because they wouldn't have a good life and "weren't meant to be"". Then you're just playing God and that is not your place.

I hope this make sense to you all. I leave this post with a personal story:

I was born in Russia at 28 weeks of gestation along with my twin brother. We were extremely small with a plethra of medical problems. At birth most of the doctors gave up on us and treated us more like a teaching case rather than a case that they could help. They gave us a 2% chance of survival and a 0% chance of normal development. If it wasn't for one doctor who was determined to save us, I don't think I'd be here writing this email. Anyway, it is because of this one doctor that I am here (normal and healthy, I might add along with my brother) attending medical school and my brother working on wall street.

This was 24 years ago in russia and they told us that we were "not meant to live" and called us "aborts". Today, a baby of 28 weeks of pregnancy has much better chances of surviving that I was given. Therefore, you never know, maybe medicine will find a way to have premature babies of 20 weeks live a "full and meaningful life" filled with accomplishments and happiness.

Basically my overall message is "don't play God". It's not your place.

dmitri

i can see how this can be very personal for you. but think of other situations where maybe a child isn't given such a great outcome but still is able to be saved.

i don't believe i said that I should be the one to decide, but why not allow the parents to decide. after all, a mother doesn't want to have her birth in a hospital, no one complains.. so why, if a mother has a baby in a hosptial can't she decide to let her affected child die just as it would have in a more natural setting?

 

[typeB-md]

I agree with the OP about the most extreme examples - e.g. those severely premature babies w/ life expectancies of <10 yrs or the CP pt with zero quality of life. They didn't ask to be born.

This debate and dialogues like this is healthy & much needed. We dont talk about this stuff in med school. For those immature turds who feel the need to post stupid pictures, that just shows how stupid you are, you have no intelligent thoughts of your own to contribute. You guys are the true trolls.

exactly. i know this is controversial, but i really wanted an answer. this is something i have been thinkign about lately. just because we have teh capabilities, is it really better?

 

[YzIa]

We as a society have enough qualms and difficulties keeping abortion legal and available to women. Obviously there are differences in that in many cases an abortion is performed on what appears to be a healthy fetus. Yet, in such an era of compassionate conservatism where political powers are fighting for protection of any human life (Terry Schiavo) It would never become legally acceptable (nevermind ethically) to give up on a newborn in poor shape. These positions are determined often by people who have no medical training, not that it would make a difference, but that is just one of the many other reasons along with those already stated.

 

[shaydz]

I don't understand the concept of "letting nature take its course". If we did allow nature to take its course, then why practice medicine in the first place? I mean, after all, aren't we intervening in what "nature" has already deemed unacceptable?

 

[scootad.]

I don't understand the concept of "letting nature take its course". If we did allow nature to take its course, then why practice medicine in the first place? I mean, after all, aren't we intervening in what "nature" has already deemed unacceptable?

Its not that difficult a concept to understand. The OP isnt talking about lettng nature take its course for all cases - just the cases in which intervening serves only to prolong a life that is doomed to be cut severly short or for a pt who will have zero quality of life & will endure limitless suffering in the interim & for many who would not choose to live that way if given the opportunity to choose.

 

[Elysium]

I can't believe I'm saying this, but I actually agree with you, type B. I've bitched numerous times about how much it disturbs me when people pull out all the stops for a 25 week old fetus that happened to be born to soon. In the days before medical intervention (even 20-30 years ago) these babies would have been allowed to die, because they were not "fit" (as in Darwin's definition). I understand the effort to save the life of a 34+ week child, but these incredibly premeture babies tend to wind up with mutliple complications that plague them indefinetly. Then, there's the tremendous cost associated with saving these kids (even the crack babies - another thing that totally pisses me off).

The other thing that really pisses me off is the recent increase of multiples (as in litters of children) that women are having. Are you kidding me with having 5 babies at once? Are you a friggin' cat? I think that's irresponsible medicine, even though the RE docs can't help it.

I would never work it a NICU, probably because it would piss me off too much. I would not have a child with severe birth defects and would not allow docs to try and save the life of a 24 week old fetus.

I know it's not PC, but that's how I feel.

 

[typeB-md]

We as a society have enough qualms and difficulties keeping abortion legal and available to women. Obviously there are differences in that in many cases an abortion is performed on what appears to be a healthy fetus. Yet, in such an era of compassionate conservatism where political powers are fighting for protection of any human life (Terry Schiavo) It would never become legally acceptable (nevermind ethically) to give up on a newborn in poor shape. These positions are determined often by people who have no medical training, not that it would make a difference, but that is just one of the many other reasons along with those already stated.

well this is a good question, why is it so wrong to giving up on a newborn in poor shape (who would otherwise be unfit to survive and live)?

what are the downsides to such a practice?

 

[typeB-md]

I can't believe I'm saying this, but I actually agree with you, type B. I've bitched numerous times about how much it disturbs me when people pull out all the stops for a 25 week old fetus that happened to be born to soon. In the days before medical intervention (even 20-30 years ago) these babies would have been allowed to die, because they were not "fit" (as in Darwin's definition). I understand the effort to save the life of a 34+ week child, but these incredibly premeture babies tend to wind up with mutliple complications that plague them indefinetly. Then, there's the tremendous cost associated with saving these kids (even the crack babies - another thing that totally pisses me off).

The other thing that really pisses me off is the recent increase of multiples (as in litters of children) that women are having. Are you kidding me with having 5 babies at once? Are you a friggin' cat? I think that's irresponsible medicine, even though the RE docs can't help it.

I would never work it a NICU, probably because it would piss me off too much. I would not have a child with severe birth defects and would not allow docs to try and save the life of a 24 week old fetus.

I know it's not PC, but that's how I feel.

now if we can get the internet quarterback in here, the pigs may soon take to their airplanes.

and good post

 

[shaydz]

Its not that difficult a concept to understand. The OP isnt talking about lettng nature take its course for all cases - just the cases in which intervening serves only to prolong a life that is doomed to be cut severly short or for a pt who will have zero quality of life & will endure limitless suffering in the interim & for many who would not choose to live that way if given the opportunity to choose.

I think the OP included more than just the ones you mentioned (the ones who HAVE a chance of living a reasonably good life .i.e. type I diabetics to be).

Also the OP didn't think it worth to spend much money on research for cases like this. But one of the points of the research is to make it such that the quality of life will also be improved.

One of the great things about being human, is that we can actually alter the course of nature in many aspects. Why let nature take its "course" when we can alter it to benefit our kind.

I agree with many of you with the issue about extreme cases, however. There is no point for example, is lengthening the life of an anencephalic by one or two months. However, when the technology is there to somehow (miraculously) reverse the effects of the disorder at least to a certain degree and improve the quality of life of the person...it should be done.

 

[Acherona]

am i mistaken by thinking that spina bifida is a vague umbrella term that covers several types of open canal ailments?

the difference with the stroke patient is that they are already living and cognizant of life. a newborn baby doesn't have the capacity to understand anything, thus, allowing this baby to die before it can experience suffering may be viewed as more "humane."

i understand people have different priorities. but as it is now, mothers do not have teh option of letting their premature baby or genetically defected baby die.

and i agree, it's 100% not for me to decide. by why shouldn't the option be there? (i could argue that it is not for you to decide whether or not the option is available)

Aren't there certain religions, like christian scientists, that don't believe in any sort of medical intervention? If you really want to you can get a religious exemption:
http://www.masskids.org/jcl/jcl_6appendix.html?FACTNet

But I agree it should be made easier for lay people to have the option of refusing medical help for their children (maybe not 17 year olds, but certainly infants). After all, they are the ones who are going to be saddled with the burden of raising it. When the defects are due to the negligence of parents or aggressive IVF it is a little disconcerting that Society (i.e. our tax dollars) are going to support this person probably for the rest of their short tortured lives. But practically I'm not sure how many parents would actually take advantage of this option. I imagine you feel different about letting it die when it's yours.

 

[calcrew14]

Definition
Spina Bifida means cleft spine, which is an incomplete closure in the spinal column. In general, the three types of spina bifida (from mild to severe) are:

1. Spina Bifida Occulta: There is an opening in one or more of the vertebrae (bones) of the spinal column without apparent damage to the spinal cord.

2. Meningocele: The meninges, or protective covering around the spinal cord, has pushed out through the opening in the vertebrae in a sac called the "meningocele." However, the spinal cord remains intact. This form can be repaired with little or no damage to the nerve pathways.

3. Myelomeningocele: This is the most severe form of spina bifida, in which a portion of the spinal cord itself protrudes through the back. In some cases, sacs are covered with skin; in others, tissue and nerves are exposed. Generally, people use the terms "spina bifida" and "myelomeningocele" interchangeably.

http://www.nichcy.org/pubs/factshe/fs12txt.htm

 

[Doc 2b]

work with me here...

why do we try and come up with cures for all of these birth defects and try and maintain 20 week premature babies who have a super small chance or no chance of surviving without intervention.. why do we insist on finding a way for these children to live rather than just saying "hey, this is not the way nature intended it to be, let's let this child go so that he will never know a tormented childhood and short life"

why do we insist on trying to keep these otherwise unhealthy babies around. it seems that we do more harm because in the long run they will have a crappy quality of life, they will know they have a crappy quality of life, and eventually they will die earlier than other normal people?

why can't we just let these abnormalities rest in peace rather than try and artificially prevent death in a seemingly un-selected individual?

I really agree with you in some aspects. I am a big believer in Darwinian theory. i have friend doing a CT fellowship this, that actually chose his fellowship based on the amount of pediatric intervention he'd have to do, he just doesn't believe in saving kids that will perpetuate a defaulty gene.

 

[typeB-md]

I think the OP included more than just the ones you mentioned (the ones who HAVE a chance of living a reasonably good life .i.e. type I diabetics to be).

Also the OP didn't think it worth to spend much money on research for cases like this. But one of the points of the research is to make it such that the quality of life will also be improved.

One of the great things about being human, is that we can actually alter the course of nature in many aspects. Why let nature take its "course" when we can alter it to benefit our kind.

I agree with many of you with the issue about extreme cases, however. There is no point for example, is lengthening the life of an anencephalic by one or two months. However, when the technology is there to somehow (miraculously) reverse the effects of the disorder at least to a certain degree and improve the quality of life of the person...it should be done.

Why spend money for research when the entire problem can be prevented in the first place? I see your point about quality of life, but they wouldn't even have a life it wasn't our interference with nature.

It's like this: We artificially find ways to keep babies from dying. We then have to research ways to allow said babies to have a good quality of life. It seems so oxymoronic to me.

And why is it so great that we can alter nature? Are we really better off because we can now eliminate natural selection?

 

[typeB-md]

Aren't there certain religions, like christian scientists, that don't believe in any sort of medical intervention? If you really want to you can get a religious exemption:
http://www.masskids.org/jcl/jcl_6appendix.html?FACTNet

But I agree it should be made easier for lay people to have the option of refusing medical help for their children (maybe not 17 year olds, but certainly infants). After all, they are the ones who are going to be saddled with the burden of raising it. When the defects are due to the negligence of parents or aggressive IVF it is a little disconcerting that Society (i.e. our tax dollars) are going to support this person probably for the rest of their short tortured lives. But practically I'm not sure how many parents would actually take advantage of this option. I imagine you feel different about letting it die when it's yours.

i agree. this is a good point about when it comes time to make the decision about your child. but i would really have to say that the rational mind would realize that you'd be doing the child more harm in the long run. but i can imagine that a parent-child bond is something outside of rational.

 

[typeB-md]

Definition
Spina Bifida means cleft spine, which is an incomplete closure in the spinal column. In general, the three types of spina bifida (from mild to severe) are:

1. Spina Bifida Occulta: There is an opening in one or more of the vertebrae (bones) of the spinal column without apparent damage to the spinal cord.

2. Meningocele: The meninges, or protective covering around the spinal cord, has pushed out through the opening in the vertebrae in a sac called the "meningocele." However, the spinal cord remains intact. This form can be repaired with little or no damage to the nerve pathways.

3. Myelomeningocele: This is the most severe form of spina bifida, in which a portion of the spinal cord itself protrudes through the back. In some cases, sacs are covered with skin; in others, tissue and nerves are exposed. Generally, people use the terms "spina bifida" and "myelomeningocele" interchangeably.

http://www.nichcy.org/pubs/factshe/fs12txt.htm

i must admit, i was ignorant to the fact that the terms were used interchangebly. so the neuro chief resident was born with the exposed nervous tissue, correct?

 

[typeB-md]

I really agree with you in some aspects. I am a big believer in Darwinian theory. i have friend doing a CT fellowship this, that actually chose his fellowship based on the amount of pediatric intervention he'd have to do, he just doesn't believe in saving kids that will perpetuate a defaulty gene.

but then some will cry Hitler, etc. But the difference to me, really, is that Hitler wanted to exterminate existing genes, whereas I (and it seems like your friend) would just not intervene and "save" what nature was trying to get rid of.

 

[automaton]

I really agree with you in some aspects. I am a big believer in Darwinian theory. i have friend doing a CT fellowship this, that actually chose his fellowship based on the amount of pediatric intervention he'd have to do, he just doesn't believe in saving kids that will perpetuate a defaulty gene.

it's quite touching that your friend has a greater concern for evolution than a human life. i know of a similar guy. his name was richard ramirez and he had a love of applied mathematics. his favorite topic: subtraction.

 

[automaton]

to the OP: yes i believe parents should have the choice and i support the legalization of infanticide for cases of euthanasia.

 

[bmcgilligan]

First of all, I don't agree with the OP. I fear the day when medicine decides who lives and dies.

What about progeria? Progeria is the disease that causes early aging in children and they die before they are 20 (usually much before) and usually die of an "old age" death (stroke, CHF, etc) There is quite a bit of research being done on this disease. Not only does this research have applications to the progeric children, but also to all of us. By studying progeria, scientists learn more about the aging process and the chronic conditions associated with it.

150 years ago, all a physician was capable of doing was diagnosing and prognosing. Now, we can actually cure and at least comfort. The rise of vaccines and antibiotics changed the fabric of medicine. I personally will not be able to sit by and not help when my treatments even have the slightest ability to help.

Obviously type B is not a parent (and neither am I for that matter) A woman gestates a baby for months. During that time the baby moves within her. She grows to love that baby, usually naming it before it is even born. How hard would it be to just give up hope on that baby?

I don't know. This is a "slippery slope" issue. I am going to be a physician, not a god.