As this news report directly effects me and my experiences I have decided to discuss it and give my side of the story. Here is a link to the story http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-12625253 The story talks about very premature babies and their fight for life. It gives the statistics that only nine babies in a hundred born at 23 weeks will survive and out of the survivors most are disabled.
Later on in the article it talks about in Holland they have a policy of non intervention. The article says Resuscitating babies at 23 weeks is not universal. In Holland the policy is to not intervene with babies born at this time, and to allow them to die a dignified death. "That is how nature works there is no way you can help these babies," said Professor Arend Bos from the Dutch Society of Neonatologists."I think we are doing more harm to treat them and after two or three hours or days or six weeks the infant will die anyway, having had a lot of suffering and pain that doesn't have any purpose to it." The article then asks should we adopt the same policy in the UK.
I have to point out that section 1, article 2 of the european convention on human rights protects the right to life. In the UK this is enforced under the Human Rights act of 1998. This would also apply to premature babies regardless of how premature they are born. I know this is a very simplistic view but from my point of view is that if a baby is able to breathe then it must have a viable life and therefore the human rights act must apply. I would also say that doctors have a duty of care.
However this is where things get a bit more complicated and things aren’t so black and white. As a parent all I wanted was to spend as much time as possible with my daughters, my instinct and everything inside of me wanted everything possible done to save them. I would have taken care of them regardless of how ill or disabled they were. On the flip side of this I wouldn’t and didn’t want my daughters to suffer. It has taken me a huge amount of effort to say this but with my eldest daughters medical intervention quite possibly would have made her suffer and cause her pain. I am now in tears typing this but allowing my daughters to die with dignity in my arms without massive medical intervention was the best thing I could do for them. They both fought for life though and I am beyond proud of them.
I would also argue that there may be cases were not intervening would cause the baby distress and to suffer. There are also parents who would want and expect the doctors to intervene regardless of the situation. The article doesn’t say what happens in Holland in these cases. Finally there are the genuine miracles where babies survive against all odds, I would ask that surely these babies deserve all available support and help?
Personally I believe that the UK should not adopt the same policy as Holland. Every single baby should be given the best possible care on the basis on the medical evidence the baby presents and yes that should include allowing the baby to die with dignity if nothing else can be done.
Finally the article talks about over £10 million being spent on babies born at 23 weeks yet the survival figures haven’t increased. If we start to use cost to justify not intervening then we as a country have taken a huge step back as a society. The total NHS budget is £110 billion so the £10 million spent on trying to save babies born at 23 weeks represents a tiny proportion of the budget. I would say that this money is well spent and I am currently fighting for the funding of neonatal services to be increased.
No comments:
Post a Comment