Far better to show up fashionably late than early, especially under the British health care system. But on the positive side, he won't count against the infant mortality rate.

dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1211950/Premature-baby-left-die-doctors-mother-gives-birth-just-days-22-week-care-limit.html

'Doctors told me it was against the rules to save my premature baby'

By Vanessa Allen and Andrew Levy
Last updated at 7:58 AM on 09th September 2009




Doctors left a premature baby to die because he was born two days too early, his devastated mother claimed yesterday.

Sarah Capewell begged them to save her tiny son, who was born just 21 weeks and five days into her pregnancy - almost four months early.

They ignored her pleas and allegedly told her they were following national guidelines that babies born before 22 weeks should not be given medical treatment.


Miss Capewell, 23, said doctors refused to even see her son Jayden, who lived for almost two hours without any medical support.

She said he was breathing unaided, had a strong heartbeat and was even moving his arms and legs, but medics refused to admit him to a special care baby unit.


Sarah Capewell is fighting for new guidelines on when infants should be given intensive care after her premature son Jayden (right) was refused treatment

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.'

Miss Capewell, who has had five miscarriages, said the guidelines had robbed her son of a chance of life.


She said: 'When he was born, he put out his arms and legs and pushed himself over.

A midwife said he was breathing and had a strong heartbeat, and described him as a "little fighter".

I kept asking for the doctors but the midwife said, "They won't come and help, sweetie. Make the best of the time you have with him".'

She cuddled her child and took precious photos of him, but he died in her arms less than two hours after his birth.

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.


She told how she begged one paediatrician, 'You have got to help', only for the man to respond: 'No we don't.'

As her contractions continued, a chaplain arrived at her bedside to discuss bereavement and planning a funeral, she claims.

She said: 'I was sitting there, reading this leaflet about planning a funeral and thinking, this is my baby, he isn't even born yet, let alone dead.'

After his death she even had to argue with hospital officials for her right to receive birth and death certificates, which meant she could give her son a proper funeral.


She was shocked to discover that another child, born in the U.S. at 21 weeks and six days into her mother's pregnancy, had survived.

Amillia Taylor was born in Florida in 2006 and celebrated her second birthday last October. She is the youngest premature baby to survive.

Miss Capewell said: 'I could not believe that one little girl, Amillia Taylor, is perfectly healthy after being born in Florida in 2006 at 21 weeks and six days.

'Thousands of women have experienced this. The doctors say the babies won't survive but how do they know if they are not giving them a chance?'

Miss Capewell has won the support of Labour MP Tony Wright, who has backed her call for a review of the medical guidelines. He said: 'When a woman wants to give the best chance to her baby, they should surely be afforded that opportunity.'

Guidance limiting care of the most premature babies provoked outrage when it was published three years ago.

Experts on medical ethics advised doctors not to resuscitate babies born before 23 weeks in the womb, stating that it was not in the child's 'best interests'.

The guidelines said: 'If gestational age is certain and less than 23+0 (i.e at 22 weeks) it would be considered in the best interests of the baby, and standard practice, for resuscitation not to be carried out.'

Medical intervention would be given for a child born between 22 and 23 weeks only if the parents requested it and only after discussion about likely outcomes.

The rules were endorsed by the British Association of Perinatal Medicine and are followed by NHS hospitals.

The association said they were not meant to be a 'set of instructions', but doctors regard them as the best available advice on the treatment of premature babies.

More than 80,000 babies are born prematurely in Britain every year, and of those some 40,000 need to be treated in intensive care.

The NHS spends an estimated £1 billion a year on their care.

But while survival rates for those born after 24 weeks in the womb have risen significantly, the rates for those born earlier have barely changed, despite advances in medicine and technology.

Medical experts say babies born before 23 weeks are simply too under-developed to survive, and that to use aggressive treatment methods would only prolong their suffering, or inflict pain.

The guidelines were drawn up by the Nuffield Council on Bioethics after a two-year inquiry which took evidence from doctors, nurses and religious leaders.

But weeks before they were published in 2006, a child was born in the U.S. which proved a baby could survive at earlier than 22 weeks if it was given medical treatment.

Amillia Taylor was born in Florida on October 24, 2006, after just 21 weeks and six days in the womb. She celebrated her second birthday last year.

Doctors believed she was a week older and so gave her intensive care, but later admitted she would not have received treatment if they had known her true age.

Her birth also coincided with the debate in Britain over whether the abortion limit should be reduced.

Some argued that if a baby could survive at 22 weeks then the time limit on abortions should be reduced.

The argument, which was lost in Parliament, followed a cut to the time limit in 1990 when politicians reduced it from 28 weeks to 24 weeks, in line with scientific evidence that foetuses could survive outside the womb at a younger age.

However, experts say cases like Amillia Taylor's are rare, and can raise false expectations about survival rates.

Studies show that only 1 per cent of babies born before 23 weeks survive, and many suffer serious disabilities.

quote:

Amillia Taylor was born in Florida on October 24, 2006, after just 21 weeks and six days in the womb. She celebrated her second birthday last year.

Doctors believed she was a week older and so gave her intensive care, but later admitted she would not have received treatment if they had known her true age.

In other words, had her real age been known she would have been treated EXACTLY the same as in the British NHS system.

Or, conversely, if the UK medics had mistaken the boy for older he would have been treated in intesive care.

Is there a point to this article, other than the immense medical problems associated with severe premature birth ?

That's hardly a revelation.

quote:

Originally posted by ScotsVisitor:

quote:

Amillia Taylor was born in Florida on October 24, 2006, after just 21 weeks and six days in the womb. She celebrated her second birthday last year.

Doctors believed she was a week older and so gave her intensive care, but later admitted she would not have received treatment if they had known her true age.

In other words, had her real age been known she would have been treated EXACTLY the same as in the British NHS system.

Nah, I watched a NICU team try an impossible save with my own eyes. It was a number of years prior to Amillia Taylor.

We also would have given the treatment to try to stop the premature labor.

The Daily Mail omitted to mention that the infant mortality rate (deaths/per 1,000 live births) in the USA (ranked 32 from top) is 6.3%, whereas it's 4.8%(22 from top) in the UK.

+http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_infant_mortality_rate+

Maybe we should be looking to Iceland etc. for a lead in this field ?

What's the point of posting this?

Terribly heartbreaking, yes.

But what sort of "point-counterpoint" are you after?

quote:

Originally posted by 1WW:
What's the point of posting this?

Terribly heartbreaking, yes.

But what sort of "point-counterpoint" are you after?

"Terribly heartbreaking, yes."

Err, no ..... this is an abomination.

An abomination many think we ought to have here.

quote:

Originally posted by Boospar:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by ScotsVisitor:
The Daily Mail omitted to mention that the infant mortality rate (deaths/per 1,000 live births) in the USA (ranked 32 from top) is 6.3%, whereas it's 4.8%(22 from top) in the UK.

+http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_infant_mortality_rate+

Maybe we should be looking to Iceland etc. for a lead in this field ?

Unless everyone is using the same standard of measurement as to what constitutes a live birth, what constitutes viability and many other factors these little lists are meaningless.

quote:

Originally posted by Boospar:

quote:

Originally posted by 1WW:
What's the point of posting this?

Terribly heartbreaking, yes.

But what sort of "point-counterpoint" are you after?

"Terribly heartbreaking, yes."

Err, no ..... this is an abomination.

An abomination many think we ought to have here.

Doesn't the article say we already have it here?

quote:

Originally posted by WepsFP:

Doesn't the article say we already have it here?

"[Sssskt]... That's an affirmative, Commander... [Sssskt]..."

quote:

Unless everyone is using the same standard of measurement as to what constitutes a live birth, what constitutes viability and many other factors these little lists are meaningless.

As meaningless as the pointless article which is the subject of this thread.

Presumably whichever organisation compiles these numbers is comparing like with like ?

Interestingly enough, by the CIA's "alternative" statistics, the USA is even further down their table of infant mortality rates.

quote:

Originally posted by WepsFP:

quote:

Originally posted by Boospar:

quote:

Originally posted by 1WW:
What's the point of posting this?

Terribly heartbreaking, yes.

But what sort of "point-counterpoint" are you after?

"Terribly heartbreaking, yes."

Err, no ..... this is an abomination.

An abomination many think we ought to have here.

Doesn't the article say we already have it here?

No, not really. In order for us to match this, we'd have to deny the treatment that could have prevented the premature birth, as well as refuse to have given the medications that might have strengthened the baby's lungs thus improving chances of survivability.

But perhaps the VA can take note of the end of life options counseling methods used here ....

quote:

No, not really. In order for us to match this, we'd have to deny the treatment that could have prevented the premature birth, as well as refuse to have given the medications that might have strengthened the baby's lungs thus improving chances of survivability.

Then how did Amillia Taylor, appear at 21 weeks and 6 days in Florida ?

Presumably she too was denied the treatment quoted to prevent premature birth ?

quote:

Originally posted by ScotsVisitor:

quote:

No, not really. In order for us to match this, we'd have to deny the treatment that could have prevented the premature birth, as well as refuse to have given the medications that might have strengthened the baby's lungs thus improving chances of survivability.

Then how did Amillia Taylor, appear at 21 weeks and 6 days in Florida ?

Presumably she too was denied the treatment quoted to prevent premature birth ?

I wouldn't presume it.

quote:

Originally posted by Boospar:

quote:

Originally posted by WepsFP:

quote:

Originally posted by Boospar:

quote:

Originally posted by 1WW:
What's the point of posting this?

Terribly heartbreaking, yes.

But what sort of "point-counterpoint" are you after?

"Terribly heartbreaking, yes."

Err, no ..... this is an abomination.

An abomination many think we ought to have here.

Doesn't the article say we already have it here?

No, not really. In order for us to match this, we'd have to deny the treatment that could have prevented the premature birth, as well as refuse to have given the medications that might have strengthened the baby's lungs thus improving chances of survivability.

But perhaps the VA can take note of the end of life options counseling methods used here ....

Here's my counterpoint. You're desparate, brainwashed and contradict your own posts.

Good luck garnering support for YOUR health care reform ideas.

quote:

I wouldn't presume it.

So how was she born prematurely if the treatment to avoid this was available ?

quote:

Originally posted by ScotsVisitor:

quote:

Amillia Taylor was born in Florida on October 24, 2006, after just 21 weeks and six days in the womb. She celebrated her second birthday last year.

Doctors believed she was a week older and so gave her intensive care, but later admitted she would not have received treatment if they had known her true age.

In other words, had her real age been known she would have been treated EXACTLY the same as in the British NHS system.

Or, conversely, if the UK medics had mistaken the boy for older he would have been treated in intesive care.

Is there a point to this article, other than the immense medical problems associated with severe premature birth ?

That's hardly a revelation.

Babies even close to that age usually cost $ Millions and often have health problems their entire life.
If I remember correct the cost for the first 30 days for a baby at about 25-28 weeks in about $600,000 to $700,000
"http://abcnews.go.com/m/screen?id=2890242&pid=26

quote:

All babies born prematurely are at risk, but in those born before 25 weeks about half will have significant neurological problems like blindness, deafness, seizure or cerebral palsy.

A few -- about 25 percent develop mild symptoms like attention problems, stiffness in their legs and mild learning problems. Only about three percent to five percent have good cognitive and other functions, according to Dr. F. Sessions Cole, professor of pediatrics at Washington University School of Medicine, a neo-natal research center.

"http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=11622

quote:

The high rate of premature births in the United States constitutes a public health concern that costs society at least $26 billion a year, according to a new report from the Institute of Medicine of the National Academies.

quote:

The report uses the word "preterm" for births that occur at less than 37 weeks of pregnancy; a full-term pregnancy is 38 to 42 weeks.

"http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/359/3/262
"Long-Term Medical and Social Consequences of Preterm Birth" The New England Journal of Medicine

quote:

Originally posted by ScotsVisitor:

quote:

I wouldn't presume it.

So how was she born prematurely if the treatment to avoid this was available ?

Doesn't always work .... but we usually try it anyways.

Perhaps NICE's big concern was it would have worked.

quote:

Originally posted by rayld2:

quote:

Originally posted by ScotsVisitor:

quote:

Amillia Taylor was born in Florida on October 24, 2006, after just 21 weeks and six days in the womb. She celebrated her second birthday last year.

Doctors believed she was a week older and so gave her intensive care, but later admitted she would not have received treatment if they had known her true age.

In other words, had her real age been known she would have been treated EXACTLY the same as in the British NHS system.

Or, conversely, if the UK medics had mistaken the boy for older he would have been treated in intesive care.

Is there a point to this article, other than the immense medical problems associated with severe premature birth ?

That's hardly a revelation.

Babies even close to that age usually cost $ Millions and often have health problems their entire life.
If I remember correct the cost for the first 30 days for a baby at about 25-28 weeks in about $600,000 to $700,000
"http://abcnews.go.com/m/screen?id=2890242&pid=26

quote:

All babies born prematurely are at risk, but in those born before 25 weeks about half will have significant neurological problems like blindness, deafness, seizure or cerebral palsy.

A few -- about 25 percent develop mild symptoms like attention problems, stiffness in their legs and mild learning problems. Only about three percent to five percent have good cognitive and other functions, according to Dr. F. Sessions Cole, professor of pediatrics at Washington University School of Medicine, a neo-natal research center.

"http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=11622

quote:

The high rate of premature births in the United States constitutes a public health concern that costs society at least $26 billion a year, according to a new report from the Institute of Medicine of the National Academies.

quote:

The report uses the word "preterm" for births that occur at less than 37 weeks of pregnancy; a full-term pregnancy is 38 to 42 weeks.

"http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/359/3/262
"Long-Term Medical and Social Consequences of Preterm Birth" The New England Journal of Medicine

So sorry my twins contributed to the public health concern.

On second thought, I'm not.

quote:

Originally posted by ScotsVisitor:

quote:

Unless everyone is using the same standard of measurement as to what constitutes a live birth, what constitutes viability and many other factors these little lists are meaningless.

Presumably whichever organisation compiles these numbers is comparing like with like ?

I would presume nothing.

You presume to make profound statements about the UK NHS based on one extra ordinary case in a foreign newspaper article when it suits your purpose - then shun away from statistics provided by recognised authorities such as the UN and the CIA when they don't fit.

Boospar, your title is misleading anyway (what a surprise).

The guidance which you find so abominable (personally I find making any animal, even a human, suffer the way that pre-22 week prematures suffer to be abomination but there you go) was formulated by the Nuffield Council not NICE. The Nuffiled Council like Nuffield Hospitals is an independent charitable organisation independent from the NHS.

I don't know Boospar or his ideas, but what I took from it is the fact that this should show those who are for Obama's health care plan, why many are against it. Maybe we don't have the best health care, but obviously it's better than in the U.K.
On a personal note, my cousin was born earlier this year, January 15. He was supposed to be born early to mid April. But although he has some complications and needed surgery, he is a happy baby boy. For one minute after seeing him, I don't see how anyone could just have let him die. Truth is, with the technology today, he did survive, and will live a happy life, and it's possible for many other babies in the same situation too. In this world, people go to opposite extremes, from going too far in science, to doing to little. Why can't we just have a balance?

quote:

Originally posted by amb94:
Maybe we don't have the best health care, but obviously it's better than in the U.K.

By what comparison?

What is the metric that you are using to make that judgment?
Cost per capita? Nope.
Cost as % of GDP? Nope.
Infant Mortality Rate? Nope.
Life Expectancy at Birth? Nope.
Number of medical bankruptcies? Nope.

I really am curious as to what standard you are using to make the argument that the US system is better than the UK system.

quote:

I don't know Boospar or his ideas, but what I took from it is the fact that this should show those who are for Obama's health care plan, why many are against it. Maybe we don't have the best health care, but obviously it's better than in the U.K. ...

Maybe you should have read the first response to the thread.

quote:

Originally posted by 2nd_freedomfighter:

quote:

I don't know Boospar or his ideas, but what I took from it is the fact that this should show those who are for Obama's health care plan, why many are against it. Maybe we don't have the best health care, but obviously it's better than in the U.K. ...

Maybe you should have read the first response to the thread.

What about the first response? This is MY view on it.

quote:

Originally posted by ScotsVisitor:
You presume to make profound statements about the UK NHS based on one extra ordinary case in a foreign newspaper article when it suits your purpose - then shun away from statistics provided by recognised authorities such as the UN and the CIA when they don't fit.

When one brings up statistics one should be prepared to explain the methodology by which they were obtained.

quote:

Originally posted by amb94:
I don't know Boospar or his ideas, but what I took from it is the fact that this should show those who are for Obama's health care plan, why many are against it. Maybe we don't have the best health care, but obviously it's better than in the U.K.
On a personal note, my cousin was born earlier this year, January 15. He was supposed to be born early to mid April. But although he has some complications and needed surgery, he is a happy baby boy. For one minute after seeing him, I don't see how anyone could just have let him die. Truth is, with the technology today, he did survive, and will live a happy life, and it's possible for many other babies in the same situation too. In this world, people go to opposite extremes, from going too far in science, to doing to little. Why can't we just have a balance?

Tsk, tsk, tsk .... your cousin contributed to a public health concern that costs society at least 26 billion dollars a year. Glad to hear it.

quote:

Originally posted by ScotsVisitor:

quote:

Amillia Taylor was born in Florida on October 24, 2006, after just 21 weeks and six days in the womb. She celebrated her second birthday last year.

Doctors believed she was a week older and so gave her intensive care, but later admitted she would not have received treatment if they had known her true age.

In other words, had her real age been known she would have been treated EXACTLY the same as in the British NHS system.

Or, conversely, if the UK medics had mistaken the boy for older he would have been treated in intesive care.

Is there a point to this article, other than the immense medical problems associated with severe premature birth ?

That's hardly a revelation.

It's an interesting read but that's about it. Without a credible URL it's nothing but hearsay. Hearsay carries zero credibility.

quote:

Originally posted by Bladensburg:
Boospar, your title is misleading anyway (what a surprise).

The guidance which you find so abominable (personally I find making any animal, even a human, suffer the way that pre-22 week prematures suffer to be abomination but there you go) was formulated by the Nuffield Council not NICE. The Nuffiled Council like Nuffield Hospitals is an independent charitable organisation independent from the NHS.

"They ignored her pleas and allegedly told her they were following national guidelines that babies born before 22 weeks should not be given medical treatment."

So they're independent of NHS yet they cite national guidelines when explaining their actions?

quote:

When one brings up statistics one should be prepared to explain the methodology by which they were obtained.

In other words you don't think an organisation like the UN or the CIA is capable of producing accurate comparable statistics.

I suspect both organisations are very professional and very diligent in the research and compilation of such information which they publish for worldwide public access.

Somewhat more credible than the Daily Mail as a source of anything except sensational journalism to sell newspapers.