My opionions and whatever other insane idea I think of
Published on November 15, 2006 By msladydeath In Current Events
According to a recently released British report, Preemies born before 22 weeks gestation should not be giving life saving measures and be allowed to die. Though the report does not advocate euthanasia. The odds of an infant born that early ever having a meaning full life are so slim, and more than likely the infant will die or be severely retarded. This according to MS-NBC's recent article Report: Extreme Preemies should not be saved

I think preemies that young are also known as micro preemies. To give you and idea of the size and look of a 22 week old preemie, their skin is thin and see through, finger nails and toe nails are budding and becoming visible. Ears may be still folded over and eyes may be still fused shut. This is also normally about the time the mother would feel the "quickening" or when she first feels the baby move. at 22 weeks is also when the brain goes into rapid growth. The micro preemie would be approximately 8 to 10 inches long and weigh between half a pound and a pound. The air sacs have not developed in the lungs yet. Babies Online week 22 pregnancy Calender

Not much information is available on the net about infants born at or before 22 weeks other than as miscarriages or elective abortion. I did find one story of a child born at 22 weeks and what he has gone through just to survive to 3 years old. William's page.

I don't know that I personally would want to put my child through so much for just a slim chance of survival and almost no chance of a meaningful life, plus the pain of multiple surgeries. The pain of the loss would be incredible, but I think almost preferable.

(Posted both on myspace and joeuser)

Comments (Page 1)
on Nov 15, 2006

I guess ambulance crews, ERs and Surgeons should just let multiple trauma, stroke and advanced heart attack patients just die too, since their prognosis for a "meaningful" life is slim...Just think of the money we could save!

While we're at it, why don't we just let everyone involved in organized religion just die... Elton John swears that it only leads to a hatefilled life, and what is meaningful about hate?  ;~D

on Nov 15, 2006
Are the other ones called macro preemies?

Anywho...they might as well try and help the baby..."letting them die" is the same as abandoning them....

By the way...anyone know what causes premature birth?...I haven't done the research, I never had the need to...perhaps we should work on preventing that if possible.

~Zoo
on Nov 16, 2006
I guess ambulance crews, ERs and Surgeons should just let multiple trauma, stroke and advanced heart attack patients just die too, since their prognosis for a "meaningful" life is slim...Just think of the money we could save!


I didn't know they had such a shitty life if they survived... considering I know a few people that have had strokes, advanced heart attacks, multiple traumas, etc. that have very good lives, still teaching or what not and living on their own.

I can't imagine living like that. Here, something else to chew on.. Fetal Viability "But no baby has ever been successfully delivered before the middle of the 22nd week." "A baby born during the 22nd week has a 14.8 percent chance of survival. And about half of these survivors are brain-damaged,"

Zoo: Premature birth is a very well studied mystery. Sometimes it's due to no reason at all, others is a problem with the uterus, and sometimes the mothers body attacks the fetus and causes "spontaneous abortions"/miscarriage/stillbirth/preemies. Many parents, me included, allow themselves to have our lives analyzed and our stillborn child autopsied to help farther the knowledge of those Fields. Preterm labor has many, many preventions, but all to often, they fail. The drugs, surgeries, and homeopathic methods don't always work.

As a matter of thought, November 14th was Preemie awareness day. The month of November is the March of Dimes Preemie Awareness Month.
on Nov 16, 2006
OH, and a Micro preemie is

"To an NICU medical professional, a micropreemie is defined as a baby that is under 1 ¾ pounds (between 700-800 grams) and is generally born before 26 weeks gestation, but most people prefer to loosen this term up to include any baby under 3 pounds (1500 grams) or under 29 weeks gestation."

From Preemie Twins. Another very intresting read about micro preemies too.
on Nov 16, 2006
It may be easy to fantasize about what you would do if you were faced with that situation but until you are, well, you opinion is unimportant. My wife and I have had to prepare ourselves for the very real possibility that one or all of our triplets could face sever difficulties at birth. She is 25 weeks pregnant now and last night was admitted to the hospital for observation. She will probably get to go home but had it not been for a quick reaction things could have turned our quite differently.

23 weeks ago It was suggested by one doctor that we consult a specialist to consider a pregnancy reduction. I know it would have been better for the remaining babies but how can a person make that sort of choice? The reality is that with current medical intervention these babies have a chance at life. That chance is equal to potential. That potential is what it's all about.

People make decisions based on the potential of something all the time. I would bet more than one person has taken a gamble on you. This is no different. The harsh reality is that most of the babies will die regardless of all of the best medical intervention. For that baby who makes it though, don't you think that there has to be a reason for it? 23 weeks ago I could have made a decision that would have made my life less complicated now. 23 weeks ago I could have made a decision that would have almost guaranteed the good health of two of my potential children. That decision would have abandoned what potential might be there.

That potential could be the person who cures aids, finds a way to make a peaceful world or saves your life. Wouldn't it be a shame to waste such a gift just because there is a possibility that their life may be hard?
on Nov 16, 2006
Jon you rock. Hard.
on Nov 17, 2006
Maybe now I'm to callus to worry about potential. The potential for meaningfull life vs the potential for a life of nothing but pain and entrapment in one's own mind or body. Did you read the stats? Keep in mind, this entire thing has NOTHING to do with an infant born after 22 weeks, or abortion. This is about an 14% survival rate with an 50% chance after that of being brain damaged.

I do know this, if I forced the doctors to take heroic measures to save my preemie born before 22 weeks, it would be for purely selfish reasons. Call it hope, but that's not what it is, it's simply that I wouldn't want to lose another child, even if that child spent the rest of it's life being fed by a tube.

Question is though, what about the doctors recomendation? How could it effect how these measures are takin in the US? As I said in the artical, I found extremely little information about infants born before 22 weeks. I found a wealth of information for 23 weeks on though.
on Nov 17, 2006
MsLadyDeath, forgive the bluntness, but you sound like a person who would prefer it was mandatory for all fetuses who are identified as having severe handicaps be aborted.

In paramedic school we were taught that it is our responsibility to err on the side of preserving life. It's sad that there are so many people who think that death is preferable to anything that makes you think "I wouldn't want to live like that!"
on Nov 18, 2006
I just don't see your point. Not taking advantage of medical advances to further the possibility of life is foolish.

I watched a child die. He hung himself and was found with his body still clinging to life. There was nothing left of his brain. He was still given time to be totally sure that there was no hope.

You can't predict what might happen. You can't predict the severity of mental or physical disability. The truth is that most of these children die, as I stated before. Why isn't life important to you?
on Nov 18, 2006
Seems to me a 14% chance of life is far better than a 0% chance.
on Nov 21, 2006
MsLadyDeath, forgive the bluntness, but you sound like a person who would prefer it was mandatory for all fetuses who are identified as having severe handicaps be aborted.


I wouldn't support that at all.

Why isn't life important to you?


I resent that. Meaningful exisitance is important, and don't give me the paremetic stuff, I watched my brother die slowely over 3 days, I buried my son also, so back off. I also worked with disabled kids and their families, including my cousin, who's father has spent the last 30 plus years watchin his son grow to be an 8 year old trapped in an aging body, blaming himself all this time for it. Some things can't be helped.

You all seem like the people that would leave a comatosed person trapped on a vent dispite the fact that their is no hope for brain activity to resume instead of lettin the person have a peaceful and somewhat dignified death, allowing the families to greive. There really isn't much of a difference.

Maybe I'm a huge pessimist, I can't help but think of this kid who would be my age. When he was around 8 years old his dad took him to work on an irrigation piviot, long story short, the hood of his sweatshirt got caught in the pivot and it strangled him. He lived if that's what you want to call it. He spent most of his days and nights layin on the kitchen table, unloved and uncared for. In the end, they only kept him alive in a vegitative state because they got money for his existance. I'll never get that picture out of my head, it sits there, along with the many horrors I have seen in my life.

I can't understand why people think that tourtureing another living being for some feable hope is a good thing. Would you FORCE the family of a macro preemie to to that to their child???? This research is probably the first time support has been publicly givin to allowing a family of a macro preemie to die in peace surrounded by love and being held by his/her family, instead of hooked up to machienes and equipment, having untold surgery after surgery and being in constant pain because of the surgeries.

I'm not telling anyone what to do. I mainly posted this because of the research. I'm actually amazed how much I'm gettin attacked for a might and maybe comment at the end, and none of the research or facts that I worked hard to find have even been mentioned. Guess I shouldn't bother with Joeuser at all.
on Nov 21, 2006
I resent that. Meaningful exisitance is important, and don't give me the paremetic stuff,


First of all you have your Bloggers mixed up. It also appears that you haven't read what was there either. Secondly, meaningful existence is something that is relative to an individual.

I took the time to read all of your research from the original article and as you continued to try and bolster your position. Frankly, it wasn't that much data.

I watched a child die. He hung himself and was found with his body still clinging to life. There was nothing left of his brain. He was still given time to be totally sure that there was no hope.


Those were my own words and this was my cousin. It's obvious you didn't pay attention to them because you felt the need to discuss a child who was left on a table. That was not the fault of the child. That was the fault of people who didn’t deserve that child.

This is about an 14% survival rate with an 50% chance after that of being brain damaged.


These are your words. I find it morally repugnant that you would ignore the possibility of life here. First of all, (this will be the third time I have wasted this comment on you) 86% of these babies will die even with the most advanced medical treatment available. Those 14% that make it 50% of them will suffer from brain damage. That means that 50% of the will not have brain damage according to the statistics you used.

To sum up my position: All life is important. To simply let a baby die because it has a 50% chance of being brain damaged (you can’t predict the severity) is wrong. We are only talking a 14% survival rate. 14 babies in 100 will survive. 7 of them could lead a normal life.

Why isn’t life important to you?
on Nov 21, 2006
Would you FORCE the family of a macro preemie to to that to their child????

on Nov 21, 2006
I refuse to totally go into suicide, since it's unrelated to the topic.

I'm not even firm in my support of the topic, it was an opinion but I can see that you havent' seen old posts of mine or understand why I blog here. I don't blog to argue, I blog to learn others positions and why, to better educate myself to others mind sets. I just haven't seen any argument other than "to live". I"m trying to create a full picture, I dont' know of any success stories either, I'd love to hear them, I'd love to be proven wrong, but I can't find them, and I spent several hours searchin before I wrote a word of this.

Know what sounds odd, that 93 kids had to suffer horrible torture so those 7 could live. Just a thought
on Nov 21, 2006
Congratulations John, I hope it works out for you guys.

Before you go any farther, it's clear she's just trying to get a rise of of you with these comments.

"Know what sounds odd, that 93 kids had to suffer horrible torture so those 7 could live. Just a thought"

Twisting statistics again are you? Here's another thought, those kids were at least given the opportunity to come into the world struggling like the rest of us. If 7 make it then that's 7 more then would if you just decided to end their lives. The 93 who were given the opportunity, were given an opportunity to live, which appears to be why this universe was created, to give life to things.

Taking it away, without at least allowing life the chance to succeed is a very wrong thing to do. It may not even be wrong in some cases, but taking away a parent's right to decide what's best for their children is wrong in any case.

None of us turn out perfect, just because you have birth defects or because you aren't perfect in every way, does not an unmeaningful life make. I would have rather been born without sight, or smell, or ears, and though I am glad I have all my senses, and limbs, if I would much rather try to make it without them and have lived then not live at all.

The bottom line, it's not your choice to make, it's the choice of the parents. John did the right thing in choosing to give all 3 the chance, but making the other choice he had, would have been right also, because it was his choice to make.

That choice is what is missing from the title of your post.

By the way John have you guys seen a 4D ultrasound image of your babies, do they use the Siemens/Acuson Ultrasound machine at your medical provider place?