"She begged one paediatrician, ‘You have got to help’, only for the man to respond: ‘No we don’t.’"

Tales of health care horror from the UK offers glimpse of what could await us at home, should the Democrats’ health care reform pass

So, I’ve been seeing a whole lot of horror stories coming out of the UK with regard to health care recently, including accounts of people wrongly placed into the country’s end-of-life care rationing process. All have been heart-wrenching, and all should make an impact on the debate here. For me, as the father of a little girl who was born six weeks’ premature and left the hospital at less than five pounds, one particular story about a little baby boy refused care after being born at 21 weeks and five days because the artificial threshold for live-saving care for premature babies in the UK is 22 weeks, was hardest to read.

Medics allegedly told her that they would have tried to save the baby if he had been born two days later, at 22 weeks.

In fact, the medical guidelines for Health Service hospitals state that babies should not be given intensive care if they are born at less than 23 weeks.

The guidance, drawn up by the Nuffield Council, is not compulsory but advises doctors that medical intervention for very premature children is not in the best interests of the baby, and is not ‘standard practice’.

James Paget Hospital in Norfolk refused to comment on the case but said it was not responsible for setting the guidelines relating to premature births.

A trust spokesman said: ‘Like other acute hospitals, we follow national guidance from the British Association of Perinatal Medicine regarding premature births.’

That little boy lived for two hours without care. And, because of some arbitrary limit put into place by health care bureaucrats, he breathed his last without care which could have saved his life. Here in the United States, doctors and trained medical personnel are in most states provided with protection from civil liability through “good samaritan” statutes in an effort to encourage those trained to do so to offer assistance at the scene of an accident without fear of legal reprisal (absent gross negligence). In the UK’s health system, it seems, doctors in hospitals aren’t even encouraged to save lives that can be saved.

And, make no mistake, we’ve seen that babies born at 21 weeks are indeed viable. Witness the story of little Amelia Taylor who, after being born at just 21 weeks and at a weight of only ten ounces will turn a healthy three years old next month.

Tonight, our president will argue to a joint session of Congress and an apprehensive American public that the plans for health care reform put forth by the White House and the Democrats will not lead to the very same sort of rationing we’re seeing in the United Kingdom and Canada. And he will be lying. There is only one way to manage costs in a government-run health care operation, and that is to ration or refuse the most expensive procedures that are perceived to offer the least in return. That means that seniors, in Obama’s own words, may be encouraged to “take a pain pill” instead of getting treatment that would extend and make better their remaining years. That means that newborns like Amelia Taylor and like that little boy in Britain could very well be refused lifesaving care.

Of course, on the latter, refusing lifesaving care to prematurely born children is nothing new to this president. He’s the one who said he didn’t want his daughters “punished with a baby.” He’s the one who forced himself to coin a new phrase–pre-viable fetus–so he could rationalize opposition to the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, which would have provided small babies who survived a botched abortion with medical treatment. Looking to gain sympathy from this president with the plight of a so-called pre-viable fetus like the one from the UK simply won’t work.

Point being, the program being pitched by The One isn’t health care reform in the sense that its focus is on health care. It’s a measure designed to exponentially expand the size, scope and reach of, and reliance upon, the American federal government. That’s it. It’s Cash For Clunkers II, friends and neighbors. And that’s why it must be stopped.

Share

Comments

  1. matt says:

    As a father of a son who was born 10 weeks early, this really hits home. I saw countless babies born between 20 and 30 weeks thriving in the NICU. Those doctors and nurses are heroes in my book. I think doctors who stand by and do nothing because the government says they wont pay, while the parent is standing before them pleading, desecrates their oath!

  2. Gail B says:

    Health care for one will mean no health care for those of us in the fringe. Trouble is, those of us in the older fringe have paid into the Medicare program and have whatever the mandatory supplementary insurance is for older citizens, while illegal aliens have not paid and are not entitled to the benefit of U.S. tax dollars.

    Whatever happened to the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?

    What the hell is wrong with our representatives?! MOST of the American people do not want government-run universal health care. Yet MOST of the Progressive Democrats want the control over the sayso of whether I live or die.

  3. JGalt says:

    I don't know the etiquette of cross posting. I did post this earlier today at American Thinker but I think it is very important so I am posting it here as well.

    The most chilling part about the denial of care to this almost 22 week gestation child has not been mentioned in most of the stories.
    The mother was denied the standard treatment to prevent early labor and was not given steroids to strengthen and mature the baby's lungs. This is criminal since the standard, effective and extremely inexpensive measures most likely would have delayed the birth until past 22 weeks and resulted in a stronger child who would have lived. One method of treating preterm labor was reviewed by the Mayo clinic recently and had a very high success rate, preventing delivery before 34 weeks in the majority of women with a short course of treatment, the majority of the remaining women had a second episode but also were able to get significant delay in delivery and therefore a more mature healthy baby. [www.webmd.com]

    This mother has suffered through 5 miscarriages. In America she would have been worked up after 2 to determine the cause of the miscarriages and attempt to prevent the next, at least in the America we know now, although certainly not in Obama's America. The treatment that UK mothers in early labor and their infants receive is truly barbaric and illustrates the banality of evil in the mind of the bureaucrats. To allow that evil to come between doctors and patients says a lot about the doctor patient relationship in Britain. We should leave no stone unturned to prevent Ezekiel Emmanuel's vision of "a Doctor less hampered by the Hippocratic Oath" from ever being becoming reality in America.

    From the Daily Mail UK

    "Miss Capewell, who has a five-year-old daughter Jodie, went into labour in October last year at 21 weeks and four days after suffering problems during her pregnancy.

    "She said she was told that because she had not reached 22 weeks, she was not allowed injections to try to stop the labour, or a steroid injection to help to strengthen her baby's lungs.

    Instead, doctors told her to treat the labour as a miscarriage, not a birth, and to expect her baby to be born with serious deformities or even to be still-born.

    Read more: [www.dailymail.co.uk]"

  4. Anonymous says:

    Nuffield Council – Nutti -field Council is more like it!

    Coming soon to a politiboro near you!

  5. goddessdivine says:

    Absolutely heart-wrenching. You know this is the very thing that will take effect if Obama care passes.

  6. Anonymous says:

    Obama can't be held to account for this kind of thing even if it does come to pass here in the States, Jeff. After all, it's "above his pay grade".

    Matt McD

Speak Your Mind

*