Wednesday, November 15, 2006
Nuffield council on bioethics report (leak)
The Telegraph reports here on the report from the Nuffield Council on Bioethics which looks at giving guidance to doctors "... for dealing with very premature babies whose survival chances are low and in whom the risk of disability is high."
The story in the Telegraph must be a leak of the report, but it seems the report will say that babies born at 22 weeks should not be routinely resuscitated (if the need arises).
According to the leaked report babies born at 22 weeks have a 1% survival chance, whatever that means. One of the problems with this kind of report is that the 1% may be true today, but if we attempt to do our best to keep premature babies alive, then in 5 years time with advances in medical science that might reach 10% or 50% who knows? If we do nothing and simply routinely let them die then will medical science strive to improve in this area?
It seems that at 23 weeks then the "doctors" can consider the wishes of the parents, which is just awfully good of them.
Most of these problems are caused because we have state interference in health care. Although the public, the ordinary person pays for the health care, they do it via the state. The state of course wants to save money (without losing votes) because it mistakenly views our money as its own. Babies born prematurely, requiring expensive treatment and carrying a very high risk of disability will cost the state a lot of money. Secondly babies born at less than 24 weeks and surviving make arguments for abortion, at that late stage, look dodgy to most people. If medical science advances to where a larger life chance exists at below 24 weeks then that will have to be reduced for abortion purposes (in order to maintain the appearance of legitimacy).
Anyway the state always gives over these sorts of decisions to committees in this case one consisting of: "... professors of philosophy, ethics, children's nursing and neonatal medicine...". This is all very well and good, but at the end of the day the ordinary person pays for the state, and the ordinary person has to live with the consequences of state decisions, and I can't help feeling they should have an element of the ordinary person on these committees. It would be a bit like jury service I suppose (an idea to develop later perhaps).
The Telegraph article is far less biased than similar ones in The Times, and they have comments from other interested parties in the debate.
At the end of the day these are terrible decisions to make, but the choice should be with the parents. Although the doctor is employed by the state, the state should be considered as merely the agent of the taxpayer (the patient in this case) and just as a patient can refuse lifesaving treatment, they should be able to insist on it. If you employ a private doctor with your own money to resuscitate a 22 week old baby, the doctor would attempt it, and take the money and no one would say anything. The fact that there is state involvement should make no difference.
The story in the Telegraph must be a leak of the report, but it seems the report will say that babies born at 22 weeks should not be routinely resuscitated (if the need arises).
According to the leaked report babies born at 22 weeks have a 1% survival chance, whatever that means. One of the problems with this kind of report is that the 1% may be true today, but if we attempt to do our best to keep premature babies alive, then in 5 years time with advances in medical science that might reach 10% or 50% who knows? If we do nothing and simply routinely let them die then will medical science strive to improve in this area?
It seems that at 23 weeks then the "doctors" can consider the wishes of the parents, which is just awfully good of them.
Most of these problems are caused because we have state interference in health care. Although the public, the ordinary person pays for the health care, they do it via the state. The state of course wants to save money (without losing votes) because it mistakenly views our money as its own. Babies born prematurely, requiring expensive treatment and carrying a very high risk of disability will cost the state a lot of money. Secondly babies born at less than 24 weeks and surviving make arguments for abortion, at that late stage, look dodgy to most people. If medical science advances to where a larger life chance exists at below 24 weeks then that will have to be reduced for abortion purposes (in order to maintain the appearance of legitimacy).
Anyway the state always gives over these sorts of decisions to committees in this case one consisting of: "... professors of philosophy, ethics, children's nursing and neonatal medicine...". This is all very well and good, but at the end of the day the ordinary person pays for the state, and the ordinary person has to live with the consequences of state decisions, and I can't help feeling they should have an element of the ordinary person on these committees. It would be a bit like jury service I suppose (an idea to develop later perhaps).
The Telegraph article is far less biased than similar ones in The Times, and they have comments from other interested parties in the debate.
At the end of the day these are terrible decisions to make, but the choice should be with the parents. Although the doctor is employed by the state, the state should be considered as merely the agent of the taxpayer (the patient in this case) and just as a patient can refuse lifesaving treatment, they should be able to insist on it. If you employ a private doctor with your own money to resuscitate a 22 week old baby, the doctor would attempt it, and take the money and no one would say anything. The fact that there is state involvement should make no difference.
Tags: medical ethics, resuscitate, life
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
