UK: NHS guidelines leave premature baby to die

Doctors left a premature baby to die because he was born two days too early, his devastated mother claimed yesterday.

Sarah Capewell begged them to save her tiny son, who was born just 21 weeks and five days into her pregnancy  -  almost four months early.

They ignored her pleas and allegedly told her they were following national guidelines that babies born before 22 weeks should not be given medical treatment.

Continues:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1211950/Premature-baby-left-die-doctors-mother-gives-birth-just-days-22-week-care-limit.html


Do you still think that the NHS does not ration medical care?

Um, that article states that the baby in the US would not have received care either if they had known her true age.

I don't know all of the specifics with these cases, but I would be more inclined to question whether the drugs to delay her labor could have helped in this situation. That is something I would want the NHS to provide, provided that the drugs would have given her a decent chance at carrying long enough to allow her baby to survive. But it sounds like the guidelines in place are pretty standard.

There are similar guidelines in place in areas in the states.  A friend in the USA had a baby at 21 weeks and they would not intervene as it would apparently cause needless pain and suffering to the child with basically no chance of survival.  The survival rate for children born that premature is 0%.  At 22 weeks, survival is only between 0-10%.  At 24 weeks it is between 40-70%. Stats are taken from a pre-natal book. The guidelines are probably in place for a reason. Every single week makes a fetus more viable outside the womb and 21 weeks is just far too early. 

Why do you see this as the NHS rationing care?  From what I understand, it is a pretty standard guideline across the medical field.

And when they do survive, they are severely disabled and tend to have shortened life spans, have very low quality of life and placing a huge medical and financial burden on the parents and the state.

The life saving measures taken with prems is one theory about the rise of autism.  We can save many more babies now, but the cost can be paid throughout the lifetime of the child. 

This is another area that can be so difficult to call. 

The reason for this is medically clear - babies born before a certain point gestation (22 weeks from conception/24 weeks from last menstrual cycke) do not have the lung tissue developed in order to survive.  It's not the NHS "rationing" care at all - no hospital would attempt to revive this baby in most Western countries.  Sorry to be blunt, especially to those that have lost babies around this threshold, but it is simple biology.  There's a reason that 24 weeks is called "viability day", because it is the point at which most hospitals will attempt to revive a premature baby.  I believe that if there is evidence it has the potential to survive maybe a few days short of this point, resus will be attempted, but that's down to discretion.

The fact that survival rates for pre-24 week babies* have not increased in the past 10 years should spell out that even with huge leaps in science, at some point it's just too early for a baby to live outside of its mother.

Typical Daily Mail spin that just gives everyone the wrong information.  

* link: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/107234.php

(also the discrepancy between 22 and 24 weeks here is because some use measurements from last menstrual cycle rather than from conception, which is 2 weeks later)

A slightly more balanced version, talking to actual doctors: http://abcnews.go.com/Health/HealthCare/premature-early-live-baby/story?id=8930142. Also note that the earliest surviving preemie, Amillia Taylor, was a product of IVF, and therefore developmentally 23 weeks old.

I feel sad for the mother who lost her baby. I can imagine being in that position and begging the doctors to do something, even if there was essentially nothing they could do.  I don't blame them for making the decision, though, it does sound as though the chance of survival was just too slim and would only lead to greater suffering for the baby and the parents.

It's terribly terribly sad to lose a baby but as a mother I would not want my child to be put through prolonged suffering if in the end there was no chance of survival.  Nor do I think that the NHS should spend thousands of pounds just to make a mother feel that they've done every thing they could.  Sometimes, as heartbreaking as it is it's just better to let nature take its course.

I hate these types of stories because they take away from the good and excellent care that many NHS hospitals provide to preemie infants and their mothers.  Even though my experience was not ideal, in retrospect I would not ever hesitate to place my child or myself in the care of the NHS maternity system again.  

These decisions are heartbreaking, but the consultants and midwives often perform miracles to save lives of preemie children and their mothers.  

My son and I are living testaments to the NHS's care and after being back in the USA I can say I honestly miss even my regular GP.  

Typical Daily Mail spin that just gives everyone the wrong information.  

"Paul in posts link to misleading and sensationalised Daily Mail story shock"