high risk pregnancy in the UK

Because of unforunate events in my first pregnancy, to balance the playing field of reproductive rights, I need costly procedures. 

Reproduction is NOT a right....it is a RESPONSIBILITY.  Just because I have a uterus does not mean that I have the RIGHT to reproduce.  It means that I have the tools necessary to have a child if I CHOOSE that RESPONSIBILITY.

I fail to see how this is fundamentally different from the person who wants a heart transplant in order to exercise his right to live as long as possible.  This is one reason why I think progressive ideas like socialized healthcare are a good thing; people become defined less by their cost and more by their needs.

I somewhat agree with that - a person might NEED a heart transplant - but a person does not NEED to have a child.

At least that's the idea.  Apparently there still exists a lot of 'american-style' sentiment that a society has more to do with who benefits society and who burdens it and less to do with a society with aggregate needs that need to be taken care of. 

Well that's the thing...I have no problem with the idea of taking care of the masses under socialized medicine - but when it's abused - then I think that is wrong. 

Deciding to have a baby when known risks are present just because it's gonna be free - in my opinion - is just WRONG.  A person who has heart failure or any other desease that is out of their control - should be taken care of FIRST.

I'm Rh- so I'll remember to ask your permission next time I think about having a baby.

I'm Rh- so I'll remember to ask your permission next time I think about having a baby.

  What's that supposed to mean?

It means, as I am at a higher risk of needing special care if I have another baby, does that mean I shouldn't have one?

Higher risk than who?  Lots of women are "high risk", and risk is a relevent thing.  All are catered for, even if their decision to get pregnant is not the wisest one they've ever made.

Higher risk than someone who is Rhesus +. 

But that RH+ person might be diabetic or have low-lying placenta or whatever.  It doesn't mean we should only care for those who are destined to have the most perfect pregnancies and births.  Actually, those people can very easily get by using absolutely zero health service resources, if they are so inclined.

Then we are in agreement!  I'm sorry Jacky, I thought you were saying someone knowing they are at higher risk of (whatever) shouldn't expect the NHS to absorb the cost of their healthcare if they choose to get pregnant.

Quote from: elly-ah on Yesterday at 06:41:10 PM

Because of unforunate events in my first pregnancy, to balance the playing field of reproductive rights, I need costly procedures.

If we're going to talk about "balancing playing fields" maybe one should give thought to balancing out children without parents with parents who want (more) children...

I know this will offend some people, but I really find it hard to wrap my mind around knowingly going into a difficult/risky pregnancy - having already experienced it - just to bring ANOTHER child into the world when there are so many children who need homes.

Being a parent isn't about giving birth.  It's about caring for and loving and providing for a child.  It's about making the child the most important person and their safety/happiness/general wellbeing should be paramount.

Just my 2p on the subject.

 

Quote from: elly-ah on Yesterday at 06:41:10 PM

 

If we're going to talk about "balancing playing fields" maybe one should give thought to balancing out children without parents with parents who want (more) children...

I know this will offend some people, but I really find it hard to wrap my mind around knowingly going into a difficult/risky pregnancy - having already experienced it - just to bring ANOTHER child into the world when there are so many children who need homes.

Being a parent isn't about giving birth.  It's about caring for and loving and providing for a child.  It's about making the child the most important person and their safety/happiness/general wellbeing should be paramount.

Just my 2p on the subject.

High risk is one thing.  Deliberately conceiving a child whom you know is going to be so premature that it will suffer from painful procedures necessary to save its life, and who has a great risk of having its health and development compromised long-term, when you already have two lovely children, is at best irresponsible; at worst quite cruel.  Just my 2p before it's deleted. 

High risk is one thing.  Deliberately conceiving a child whom you know is going to be so premature that it will suffer from painful procedures necessary to save its life, and who has a great risk of having its health and development compromised long-term, when you already have two lovely children, is at best irresponsible; at worst quite cruel.  Just my 2p before it's deleted. 

First, you're assuming that my child would be painfully premature.  I've had one already.  She's healthier than my first.  Not of course that that predicts anything, but you're making judgments like you know something I don't.

Quote from: elly-ah on Yesterday at 06:41:10 PM

 

If we're going to talk about "balancing playing fields" maybe one should give thought to balancing out children without parents with parents who want (more) children...

I know this will offend some people, but I really find it hard to wrap my mind around knowingly going into a difficult/risky pregnancy - having already experienced it - just to bring ANOTHER child into the world when there are so many children who need homes.

Being a parent isn't about giving birth.  It's about caring for and loving and providing for a child.  It's about making the child the most important person and their safety/happiness/general wellbeing should be paramount.

Just my 2p on the subject.

Suddenly, the argument that the world has lots of unloved children in it already comes into play?  Weak.  I'm quite aware about the caring and loving and providing bit.  I'm fairly fond of my own.  However, sentimental as it may be, my first husband, with whom I had the first two, is no longer with us.  Does my new husband not have the right to have a child without being made to feel badly about it?  I can't believe I'm even bothering to make this point.  People always play the percentages to the best of their abilities, whether they are aware of doing so or not.  In my case, I have to be very aware.  If after going to the risk-assessment specialist, he thinks it's a terrible idea, then fine.  However, there are those perinatologists for a reason: they have procedures that not only save lives, but can in many cases, like mine, assure that baby has a very good start. 

I wouldnt be one to step over a doctor's well-thought out advice.  But I'm not really sure that's the assurance you all are after.  In knowing a risk and going for something anyway, I'm compromising good ethical standards.  Well, good luck when putting your precious children in your cars today.

I know at least that I'd need several intrauterine blood transfusions for the baby, and that it would at least be 6 weeks premature, at least that's what I assume going by my other two pregnancies.  .

That's what I'm basing my thoughts on.  Your own post. 

And we don't own a car, whatever that means.

Well, good luck when putting your precious children in your cars today.

Um, with all due respect - WTF is that supposed to mean?

Day to day risks ARE quite numerous on their own without creating more.

And I too have children from "previous relationships" and would LOVE to have a child with my husband.  My soulmate - the one man I have ever really and truly loved and who has no biological children of his own.

But it would be HIGHLY irresponsible of me to do so, as we haven't the means to support another child on our own.  And now that I'm in my late 30s rather than in my early 20s, the risks ARE higher even though I have had no previous problems with pregnancy.

And - yeah - actually, I think the amount of unloved and unwanted children in the world should pretty much be on every parent's mind all the time.

Again with the use of the word "right" when it comes to reproduction.

IT IS NOT A RIGHT.

Yes, and what I said was that the procedures were scary and I am, probably unnecessarily, afraid of having them in a foreign land.  In fact, reassurance on that count was something I was originally after.  Silly me.  Six weeks premature, in this day and age and in a well-monitored pregnancy, is no dire thing necessarily.  The idea is to deliver the baby as soon as it's safe and when there is no continued benefit to being in my mean uterus.