From "This preemie was born at less than a pound. He just ‘graduated’ from intensive care in a cap and gown" (WaPo). The headline shows why WaPo is telling this story: there's a viral video. (The parents put the baby in a cap and gown that was manufactured to be worn by a teddy bear and paraded him through the hospital hallway to the tune of "Pomp and Circumstance.") The problem of hospitals refusing to give care to the little child just had to come along for the ride. Imagine if other medical conditions went untreated because "the majority don’t survive." How bad do the odds normally have to be before a human being is refused treatment?
From the comments there:
"'Can you help me?' he pleaded, explaining that his wife, Molli, was 22 weeks pregnant, and her life was at risk. Their baby was probably in danger, as well. His son needed to be born — soon."
At 22 weeks the proper terms are 'fetus' and 'human tissue.'
Posts
186 comments:
All around good choices that saved two lives.
A remarkable woman who strived to save the life of her child, even when her own life was at risk. And a remarkable man who stood by her side and saw her through this extraordinary trial. Some people are destined for greatness.
At 22 weeks the proper terms are 'fetus' and 'human tissue.'
The juxtaposition suggests sarcasm. Thank you, Dr. Gosnell. Thank you, Cecile.
Great beginning of a new life. May he live long and happily and himself be a strong and loving father.
I was diagnosed with stage 4 colon cancer 6 years ago. The 5 year survival rate is 20%. It never entered my mind, or that of my physicians not to pull out all the stops. As was said in Lawrence of Arabia, Nothing is Written.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_EZCG2Ex8Q0
I'm thinking that the way it usually happens is that a woman 22 weeks pregnant goes into labor, goes to the hospital and gives birth. the hospital then attempts to keep the baby alive.
I have some questions about the way this story is being told. Are we really to believe that the Potters' local hospitals wouldn't have performed the emergency C-section and tried to save the child's life if the mother had turned up in the emergency room in labor and bleeding? I am not saying the South Alabama hospital wasn't a better choice technically (they did seem to succeed), but I questioning the narrative that the other hospitals were telling this father that they wouldn't even admit the mother and child and try to save both.
Maybe they wouldn't have published the story but for the video, but the existence of the video hardly compelled them to do so. Is it really a political issue whether premature babies deserve the same medical care as any other person? I have never heard that before.
From the heading, I thought this was a joke. Like the baby would be the one asking for admission.
If the US had single-payer healthcare, would it matter how many hospitals he called? Probably not.
Gordon Pasha,
I think you forgot to watch the second half of Lawrence of Arabia.
Wonderful news.
Yes, what they needed was a level 4 NICU. I'm glad they found a good NICU 90 minutes away. Not convenient, but not too far from home.
I am shocked their OB/GYN did not refer them to a level 4 NiCU. He surely would have know which hospitals had one.
"At 22 weeks the proper terms are 'fetus' and 'human tissue.'"
This may be true, Dr. Althouse, but it suffers from a well-known logical fallacy, called, Argument by Assertion.
Do you have a legitimate source for this assertion -- other than Planned Parenthood pamphlets?
The commenters' handle is "Citizen451". I think it's sarc.
I am shocked their OB/GYN did not refer them to a level 4 NiCU. He surely would have know which hospitals had one.
Yes, I wonder about that, too.
In 1969, I operated on a baby that was 1 pound, 10 ounces, at the time the smallest baby to survive surgery. We were too busy to write it up. She was destined to survive. By the time she was 4 pounds, she could kick herself down to the end of the incubator. There were no NICUs at that time. Not even infant respirators.
I often wonder what happened to her. She is 49 now.
My granddaughter weighed in at 1 lb, 10 oz when she arrived three months early. It was touch and go while she was in the San Diego children's hospital NIC for the next 3 months, but she's now a beautiful, normal high school freshman, and we are thankful every day for the care she received.
"At 22 weeks the proper terms are 'fetus' and 'human tissue.'"
The relevant terms are "wanted" and "unwanted." There's a lot of human tissue walking around.
Yancey Ward re your questions. When my father lay dying in my arms in our home at 3 am, vomiting blood, I called his doctor to get him to admit my dad to the hospital and he refused to admit him, because, at that time (the Rules May or may not still be the same) the Medicare rule was that if a doctor admitted someone who died less than 24 hours after admittance, that doctor would be on an oversight list for six months with every decision questioned by a committee. He didn’t want that in his life. That morning, a visiting nurse saw him and said, Why isn’t this man in the hospital? When I explained the situation to her she said she would see to it that he was admitted. Dad died 72 hours later in a clean hospital bed with pain medication and at least some comfort.
But planned parenthood needs the money...
The proper term is human.
I'm sure when we've fully socialized healthcare, all perverse incentives to deny care will be eliminated, thanks to the enlightened wisdom of our Deep State betters.
I am shocked their OB/GYN did not refer them to a level 4 NiCU.
My wife worked level 4 for awhile, and yes, they should have been referred to one of them. She worked Children's in Houston (she actually cared for a few of the Octuplets) and they would fly in newborns from New Mexico.
The baby would not have survived at a hospital care without level 4 care. Usually the baby will spend as much time in NICU as it would had it stayed in the womb.
The sad part for parents having to travel so far is the baby has to stay there, and 3 months or more is hard for parents to move for awhile. Ronald McDonald Houses help. But often, the only human interaction for a long time is the nurses and doctors.
As if socialized medicine was a panacea. They apparently called ahead. Walk into any emergency room and they must provide treatment. I've been twice in just over a year. Blood pressure problem that they thought might be the heart. Did a full cardiac cath. No problems. Then a DVT on the first of June. Seven days in a hospital bed. Got excellent care both times. I have no insurance, thanks to Obamacare.
At 22 weeks the proper terms are 'fetus' and 'human tissue.'
And not too long ago, they would have said, "With dark skin, the proper term is property" or "As a Jew, the proper term is social vermin" or "At a diminished intellectual capacity, the proper term is useless eater."
And of course, "For the one who wrote that about humans in utero, the proper term is piece of shit."
I'm guessing the father was asking to what lengths the hospitals would go to help his unborn child survive. Part of the recitence to commit to trying to save the baby's life might have been cost, but given how many tepid supporters of abortion rights draw the line at viability, there may be some folks out there who are not enthusiastic about making survival routine earlier and earlier in a pregnancy. It's unlikely Dad was actually talking to an MD.
Most societies do not attempt to save babies that are so premature. It is an example that helps to explain why the USA spends 20% of GDP on healthcare. Resources are finite, so while we spend much more in this country, ultimately we must deny some other forms of care in order to undertake such efforts.
A baby this young needs a Level 4 NICU for best chances. The local hospital was not equipped.
proper terms are 'fetus' and 'human tissue.'
Well, yeah and so what?
"How proper are they, Johnny?"
“At 22 weeks the proper terms are 'fetus' and 'human tissue.“ This is the way the baby killers commenting at WaPo and enabling homicide elsewhere rationalize their immorality - by dehumanizing preborn babies. I know at least two families whose babies born prematurely in this range have survived.
Abortions here reportedly exceed 61 million. Our ladies and their enablers are approaching or exceeding monstrousness of Stalin or Mao proportions.
Prayers for the country now need to focus more and more on grace and less and less on merit.
"How bad do the odds normally have to be before a human being is refused treatment?"
This question became more pressing after God died, and took with Him the quaint notion that life was sacred. Now, it's a matter of efficiency - is the cost worth the gain -- an approach that is becoming dominant throughout the medical industrial complex. Really old people (watch out, Meadehouse, you're getting there); really young people; really sick people, are all on the losing end of that calculus.
Progress, or so the progressives call it.
What's a fetus and what's a baby is a matter of your relation to it.
It's a "seeing as" thing. Both can be done.
It's not a fact about the thing itself but about other people.
Karen,
Had you called 911, your father would have been taken to the ER and admitted, wouldn't he? What I am questioning is the assertion in the story that the hospitals wouldn't admit the mother and child at all. I think the truth is likely to be that the hospitals told the father that a child that premature couldn't be treated successfully at that location, not that they would even try.
Karen, did your father have an advance directive that his doctor knew about?
The question really is: How many people are saying this baby should have been killed? Remember, Obama pushed a law to force premature babies to be left to die.
This baby living is very inconvenient for the Gosnell worshippers on the left, of which there are very many.
Stillborn babies have a very poor track record of paying their bill.
Further to Hawkeyejb's earlier post, this is also one of the reasons that the U.S. has higher infant mortality rates than less developed countries. We take 22 week old babies and try to save them. Not all survive, in fact most do not. In less developed counties the babies get no care and die. They are classified as stillborn. Stillborn babies don't count against the infant mortality numbers. Some countries classify any baby that dies in the first month of life as stillborn. Cuba is one such country IIRC.
One issue might be with the way the US keeps stats. The hospital doesn't want to look bad.
If the baby (not tissue) is born and takes a single breath it counts as a "live birth" for infant mortality stats.
If the baby then dies (before reaching 1 year old), it becomes an "infant mortality". That makes the hospital look bad.
The way the US counts "live births" make our infant mortality stats look bad when compared to other countries. Some countries do not count the premature infant as a live birth until it reaches a certain weight. Others, Don't count any infant as a live birth until a birth certificate is issued which can be as long as a week.
If they are not a "live birth", when they die they are not an "infant mortality".
There are pros and cons to each of the various ways of counting live births. But it makes it impossible to compare infant mortality between countries. So next time anyone tells you that our infant mortality rate is lower than country X, tell them "bullshit". There is no way to know.
Most countries use the WHO definition of infant mortality. Basically death of a live born baby before the first birthday. The WHO leaves the definition of "live birth" up to each country.
Eventually, as I and Allen Dershowitz have argued, abortion will be a non-issue because babies at all partial terms will be able to survive in artificial wombs.
What will feminists argue then?
Our youngest daughter is a NICU nurse (studying to be NP at USC now) and sees so many heartbreaking and heartwarming stories like this. The main reason many end up in NICU is because mother is on drugs (meth mostly). These tiny babies need so much care! Of course, for meth heads, it's us the taxpayers of CA who pay for the $100K/day treatment. But these heroics are what America is all about. We save the hard cases. We try harder. Most of the rest of the world do not count these as "live births" until they leave the hospital, so if they die they aren't counted at all. Sure it skews our statistics on Progressive's list of infant mortality and life expectancy, but it is the best argument against a single-payer system. We need babies so we value even the difficult ones.
The Cradle Will Fall (2004), part of a collection of 5 Mary Higgins Clark flicks I bought because she used to be on Imus a lot (a collection of mysteries where the evil guys skulk and the good guys have wonderful attitudes, aimed at child-adult mystery fans), was unusual in being all about female reproductive tracts and disorders. So many plot points out of so many details.
Anyway the doctor (spoiler) could transplant a fetus from one woman to another.
Blogger wwww said...
Yes, what they needed was a level 4 NICU. I'm glad they found a good NICU 90 minutes away. Not convenient, but not too far from home.
reminds me of a story from 15-20 years ago. A woman in Canada was about to give birth to quintuplets.
In all of Canada there was not a single hospital that could handle it. The state wound up flying her to a hospital in some small city in Wyoming or Montana, IIRC.
Single payer was able to cover the emergency medical flight. They were able to cover the cost of the hospital and medical care.
What single payer COULD NOT DO was find a single facility in the entire country that was competent and equipped to provide the care.
When we have single payer in the US, where will we fly these cases to?
Not sure if it is still the case but back in the 90s and early 00s and probably still today, Canada's vaunted single payer healthcare system would send tens of thousands of women to the US to have their babies. Because Canada could not handle the load.
All those babies? Natural Born US Citizens, too.
John Henry
Fetus or baby? It's all about "intent".
Eventually, as I and Allen Dershowitz have argued, abortion will be a non-issue because babies at all partial terms will be able to survive in artificial wombs.
What will feminists argue then?
Whether society has a relation to them that requires their support. Which is to say, whether they are (to be taken as) people.
The rule is that if you're born, you taken as a person. It will migrate to if you're cute, you're taken as a baby.
Lacking cute, it's going to be hard to get anybody but a dogmatist to see it as a person and care about it enough to pay for it.
There are more MRI machines in the city of Philadelphia than there are in all of Canada.
I'd take the hard line, for purposes of understanding what's going on, that a born baby isn't a human either, but by rule is taken as a human. He learns to be human.
Assuming he's not raised by wolves.
Hey, Jersey,
Great minds think alike.
I was writing my comment about stats while you were posting yours.
John Henry
It's really about what the words human and person are actually used for, and what happens when in various contexts they're moved back to babies and fetuses. Sometimes they apply well and sometimes they apply badly. They were developed for other purposes.
So it's 100% nurture, 0% nature rhhardin? Glad we finally settled that.
I guess a wolf raised by humans would qualify as human then.
Q: Can you help me?
A: No. I am not qualified by training or experience.
Imagine that a doctor or medical facility with little expertise in dealing with certain medical issues decide to treat the patient anyway. After all, they will get paid, regardless of the outcome.
Blogger rhhardin said...
I'd take the hard line, for purposes of understanding what's going on, that a born baby isn't a human either, but by rule is taken as a human. He learns to be human.
So, God doesn't create human beings, human beings create human beings?
I suppose biologically that's true, but then a baby in the womb is just as biologically a human being as a new born or an adult, so that doesn't really get you anywhere.
If human beings create the human person, why, then, nothing is forbidden to us! Just think of the wonders we will produce!
So it's 100% nurture, 0% nature rhhardin? Glad we finally settled that.
I guess a wolf raised by humans would qualify as human then.
It's about what happens to the words when they're applied in this or that situation.
If the law says no person may sleep in a public space, are babies included?
The words become more metaphoric the younger the thing talked about.
The dogmatist says there's something specific about the thing that survives context; the language person says that the word moves in various amusing or misleading ways when you try to reason in the space of metaphors.
A wolf can be trained and may love you, but you can't trust him to distinguish your friends from strangers the way a dog can. The dog is domesticted, which is to say can make sense of human arrangements. That's about as far as you can go. The dog by himself can't stabilize language but counts on you to do it; just as you do for a baby so that he learns language. The baby differs in learning to stabilize language for himself.
The dogmatist examines the fetus; where the language person examines the situation.
@Tim Maguire: Are you suggesting that countries with single payer healthcare don't decline to treat children and infants based on low calculated survival odds? Charlie Gard?
Blogger PuertoRicoSpaceport.com said...
One issue might be with the way the US keeps stats. The hospital doesn't want to look bad.
This applies to more than babies. When I was still in practice, after the DRGs were implemented in Medicare, the hospitals got paid the same amount per diagnosis, no matter how complicated the care.
We would get a monthly printout telling us how much each case cost. If we were "expensive doctors" we could consider moving somewhere else. They didn't care if we were the best and getting the toughest cases.
So, God doesn't create human beings, human beings create human beings?
I suppose biologically that's true, but then a baby in the womb is just as biologically a human being as a new born or an adult, so that doesn't really get you anywhere.
If human beings create the human person, why, then, nothing is forbidden to us! Just think of the wonders we will produce!
A fetus is human (i.e. not wolf), not a human.
Consider saying, of a newborn, "He hardly seems human." That would be taken as wit because there's an element of truth to it, against the intuitive rule that anything born is taken as a person.
What seeming human means is: has a relation to others. Trump hardly seems human, as an insult. He's cold, mean, etc.
Fetus, offspring, baby outside of a lab.
Fetus is a technical term of art that refers to a stage in human development.
Offspring and baby are conventional terms that refer to the same.
A human life evolves from conception until a natural or elective abortion.
That said, there are two notable interests in this report. One, the mother's choice to save the life of her baby, even when her our own life was at risk. This is the definition of heroic as considered in other contexts. Two, the medical achievement to save the life of both the mother and her child.
Perhaps three. WaPo, a known Pro-Choice outfit, to report about a mother and child at risk.
Society is wired to take care of newborns. Evolutionary advantage. So the rule will support itself there. It can be leaned on to support cute fetuses (ultrasound etc), but how early a fetus will appear cute is limited. That's probably where the abortion line gets drawn, finally.
Parents may see the fetus as a baby right from conception. They have a relation to it, decorate the nursery, buy first baby gifts, baseball and mitt, etc. That's a local determination, not society's. It works fine, but needs that relationship to support it.
rhhardin lacks humanity.
Abortion is an option.
Fetus, offspring, baby outside of a lab.
Fetus is a technical term of art that refers to a stage in human development.
Offspring and baby are conventional terms that refer to the same.
A human life evolves from conception until a natural or elective abortion.
That's the dogmatist's position. He does not hear the movement of the words he uses to think with.
Fetus describes your relationship to it, one of parent to fetus. The dogmatist can't hear that.
rhhardin lacks humanity.
Abortion is an option.
It would just imply he lacks relationships to others.
But rhhardin is a person and has passed the having-been-born rule, so society takes an interest in his survival. The rule has survival value for everybody. If he's cute, even more.
So when you know a woman who is pregnant at 22 weeks, do you say to her "Do you know if you are having a girl piece of human tissue or a boy fetus?? Planned Parenthood has taught you well.
So when you know a woman who is pregnant at 22 weeks, do you say to her "Do you know if you are having a girl piece of human tissue or a boy fetus?? Planned Parenthood has taught you well.
I claim it's a fetus or a baby, depending on circumstances. It's not a fact about the fetus/baby but about his relationships, necessarily the relationships others have with him, not him with them. If the parents want it, it's a baby to them. If not, it's a fetus.
That's just where the words go on their own. Where the words go is determined by society's interest in stuff.
Society has no interest in facts about a fetus itself, though doctors do.
Under this twisted definition, can someone who has 'become" a human, stop being a human while still alive?
In short there's no line between just before birth and just after birth, not because the fetus changes but because it's society's line, a convention.
A born baby has a long way to go before he gets the word person applied to him fully with adult seriousness.
Analogy: your 4 year old wants to pay for dinner. You give him money and he hands it to the cashier. Did he pay for the dinner? Not fully, but you act as if he had done it fully, and with enough of that taking-as he learns to do it fully.
Under this twisted definition, can someone who has 'become" a human, stop being a human while still alive?
Sure. It's not a definition but watching how the word itself changes its meaning in various contexts.
Hitler became inhuman. It's not a matter of definition but the inclination to say it that's important.
You're going to reason with these words, so you ought to be sensitive to when they change right underneath you.
If Roe v. Wade would allow states to regulate abortions after 22 weeks, then we all would like Roe v. Wade to be overturned, isn't that right?
Lots of leftists become inhuman. It's one of the strange features of being more human than anybody else.
There’s only two places on the human timeline where the cost of medical care in the USA is way out of whack with the survival rates, those born too young and those who live too long. We are extending the efficacy of treatments at both ends continually. It’s another reason the rest of the world has the option of paying less for “care.” The R & D is mostly done here.
If Roe v. Wade would allow states to regulate abortions after 22 weeks, then we all would like Roe v. Wade to be overturned, isn't that right?
That's a political matter. When can you get enough support for it, in terms of fetal cuteness.
Making it all legislative would be the ideal solution. The line would keep shifting in response to various absurdities that turn up, but the fight would stop.
Lots of leftists become inhuman. It's one of the strange features of being more human than anybody else.
So do these inhumans possess unalienable rights? If so what are they?
Molly I just think we need common sense abortion reform.
They didn't want his carbon foot prints.
I guess I'm just an old fashioned conservative, because I believe that humanity begins at conception and ends at death and that every unique human being has an unalienable right to life.
gahne, their inalienable rights to kill a helpless baby.
it's us the taxpayers of CA who pay for the $100K/day treatment.
Not to be hard hearted but it is rediculous that we are paying this much to save these premature births.
A guy at work had a very premature baby. The baby was in the hospital for about a month. Then mutiple surgeries to fix a problem with the heart and many other surgeries.
The child is older and survived all this. But she is brain damaged, confined to a wheel chair and deaf.
Matt said...
@Tim Maguire: Are you suggesting that countries with single payer healthcare don't decline to treat children and infants based on low calculated survival odds? Charlie Gard?
Here's what I said: "If the US had single-payer healthcare, would it matter how many hospitals he called? Probably not."
What I am suggesting is that the answer at every hospital will be the same. (Which, obviously, is only meaningful if the answer is no. Otherwise, why keep calling?)
rhhardin said...
"Parents may see the fetus as a baby right from conception. They have a relation to it, decorate the nursery, buy first baby gifts, baseball and mitt, etc. That's a local determination, not society's. It works fine, but needs that relationship to support it."
In practice, whether a life is worth saving, or taking, is regarded as a question for the family. When my 90-year-old mother was in ICU, the doctors recommended unplugging the respirator - basically, allowing her to die. She was old, after all, and sick. But when I objected, they were willing to continue care. She revived, and was able to come home, although she died soon.
It seemed to me that the doctors altered their view of the value of her life, mostly because someone who was conscious and articulate valued it. They were prepared to kill her, but not to argue in favor of killing her.
"Lots of leftists become inhuman. It's one of the strange features of being more human than anybody else."
So do these inhumans possess unalienable rights? If so what are they?
Follow the words in their changed contexts. The leftists were born so get society's concern for their well-being. Nevertheless, this is likely not to be reciprocated by the leftists, which is what makes them inhuman.
Take it as a lit crit problem, not a philosophy problem. What does this word mean here, and what does that same word mean over there where the context changes.
I'm not criticizing the doctors, BTW. They live around people who are dying, all the time, and they have to get thick-skinned about it. I know I couldn't handle it.
"The child is older and survived all this. But she is brain damaged, confined to a wheel chair and deaf."
Yeah, that is the other side of the equation. when you ask "What are the odds?", the reply is "odds of what?". Odds of survival? Odds of ever talking? Meanwhile, in a clinic across town, babies were being slaughtered who would have been perfectly viable. It's woman's right to choose. There are no men who have that right.
Remember, the fetus is just a”clump of cells” or “intrauterine contents.” Until it is painstakingly dissected to harvest useable human body-parts. Then it’s a gold mine.
I wonder if they had a doctor? It would be the doctor that would be responsible for gaining admission into the hospital.
the fetus is just a”clump of cells” or “intrauterine contents.” Until it is painstakingly dissected to harvest useable human body-parts
That's true. Selective-child and recycled-child are separable.
Fetus, offspring, baby, couch potato, whatever. It's a human life from conception.
The question is when, and by whose choice, does a human life acquire and retain her right to life?
This is not about viability. Premature births are often considered unviable due to natural circumstances, and medical skill, not Choice. In contrast, most Planned babies are unviable by Choice, not nature, not skill.
I'm a little skeptical of the way this is being reported. There is too much damsel-in-distress, and not enough what-were-the-decsions-that-led-to-this-nexus.
My wife had pre-natal care for the kids. The hospital was never a question.
Mike said...
There’s only two places on the human timeline where the cost of medical care in the USA is way out of whack with the survival rates, those born too young and those who live too long. We are extending the efficacy of treatments at both ends continually. It’s another reason the rest of the world has the option of paying less for “care.” The R & D is mostly done here.
Well, I'd add those with cancer. Of any type. And as you said, the R & D for cancer treatment is done here.
Come to think of it- all the R & D for Aids was/is done here.... Another area where we spend more to keep people alive than the rest of the world.
What if God gets angry over his babies being murdered? Just asking. Maybe a loving and forgiving God really only loses his self control and retaliates when you murder his people. He took that attitude with his Hebrews. Maybe we will get the same unalienable revenge on our enemies.
I agree with those who say there's something odd about the story. Either their OB/GYN should have known what hospital could handle this, or any of the hospitals they called could have said "We're not equipped, you should contact University of South Alabama Children’s and Women’s." Maybe they just spoke to receptionists or nurses who wouldn't know, but they should have insisted on talking to someone who could help them. More generally, if you're in a rural area and pregnant, maybe it's a good idea to know what the resources are and where to go in an emergency before the emergency happens.
Fetus, offspring, baby, couch potato, whatever. It's a human life from conception.
A human life, not life of a human. They're not quite the same, in a not-quite way that overturns exactly the wanted extension of a word out of its usual context that the dogmatist wants to claim.
Blogger Mike said...
There’s only two places on the human timeline where the cost of medical care in the USA is way out of whack with the survival rates, those born too young and those who live too long
I will quibble a bit with those "who live too long."
I did some research on care of elderly about 25 years ago, when I was trying to get people interested in health care quality.
If anyone is interested in detail, here is a link.
I was studying "the frail elderly" which is usually defined as over 85 years old. The incidence of Medicare spending, at least the last time I looked at it in detail, was at age 70 or so. Those over 80 are usually reluctant to undergo complex interventions.
The "too old" thing is mostly a myth. Certainly, the development of lawyers interested in these issues has led to the growth of a medical ethics industry with every hospital employing at least one "ethicist" to help them keep costs down by denying care.
Fifty or sixty years ago, that was mostly decided by doctor and family.
Yancy Ward: Are we really to believe that the Potters' local hospitals wouldn't have performed the emergency C-section and tried to save the child's life if the mother had turned up in the emergency room in labor and bleeding?
Very many hospitals, especially in small towns or rural settings simply do not have the facilities to deal with extreme premature births. They may have the ability to do an emergency C section, and would do it "in house" but only if there is no other alternative. A planned C section for this dangerous of a situation....nope.
Generally patients who require more than just standard treatments, in our area, are airlifted (by helicopter or plane) to the nearest larger hospital that can handle the situation. However if time was of the essence (aka the woman was about to die), they would do the procedure to save the life of the mother, but not the baby.
From the news story, it seemed that the parents were looking for BOTH a successful C section (the mother lives) AND a guarantee to be able to help the baby (aka the baby lives). No hospital is going to guarantee either.
The hospitals he was soliciting just do NOT have the ability to take care of such a premature birth.
Welcome to Medicare/Medicaid for all. Socialized medicine at its standard MO. Cost effective procedures only.
I'm thinking that the way it usually happens is that a woman 22 weeks pregnant goes into labor, goes to the hospital and gives birth. the hospital then attempts to keep the baby alive.
Don't assume that.
"I am shocked their OB/GYN did not refer them to a level 4 NiCU."
I have to wonder if the Post is giving an accurate report of what actually happened.
For example, this statement makes no sense: "No, he was told, many hospitals don’t admit babies born that young because the majority don’t survive."
The baby or fetus, if you like, was not the patient before birth, the mother was."
A human life, not life of a human.
It is both. A state and process.
I'm guessing the father was asking to what lengths the hospitals would go to help his unborn child survive.
No, they go by weeks.
Which is an estimate.
The earliest baby to survive is (I think) Amilia Taylor, who weighed 10 ounces at birth.
Her mom had to lie in order to get the baby into a NICU.
Or else this would happen.
My grandpa, born in the backwoods of Kentucky in 1896, together with his twin sister weighed 6 lbs when they finally got to a doctor at 4 weeks. I marvel at their survival and at whatever woman's wisdom my great grandmother had to nurture these, her 13th and 14th babies to adulthood. Or was it just luck?
Blogger Saint Croix said...
I'm thinking that the way it usually happens is that a woman 22 weeks pregnant goes into labor, goes to the hospital and gives birth. the hospital then attempts to keep the baby alive.
I have another story about that. Years ago, residents at County worked night shifts in the Main Admitting Room where 20% of Los Angeles would pass through each year.
The surgery residents worked the main room, usually the 11 PM to 7 AM shift, and the OB residents worked the women's side where madams would bring their girls in once a month to get checked and women in labor were admitted. Once a guy with cirrhosis and massive ascites got sent to OB so it wasn't a perfect system but it worked pretty well.
Once time a buddy of mine named Joe was working the OB side when a woman came in who had just had a very small baby. It was lying on the gurney with her. He looked at it, concluded it was a spontaneous abortion case, tossed the baby into an emesis basin and sent them upstairs for a D&C.
Two years later, Joe was working in the GYN clinic when a woman came up to him and told him she wanted to thank him for saving her baby's life. Standing there, holding her hand, was a two year old that had been the baby he tossed in the emesis basin.
He told the story on himself.
I have to wonder if the Post is giving an accurate report of what actually happened.
Yeah yeah, because the WaPo is filled with crazy pro-lifers!
Also the NYT.
What I am questioning is the assertion in the story that the hospitals wouldn't admit the mother and child at all.
They admit the mother into the hospital (of course).
But they keep the baby out of the NICU.
Wake the fuck up.
I'd take the hard line, for purposes of understanding what's going on, that a born baby isn't a human either
Who doesn't know what a human being is?
Nazis, slave-owners and Supreme Court Justices.
A human life, not life of a human.
It is both. A state and process.
That's not the distinction. It's the human (not wolf) vs "a human" difference.
A human life has "a" modifying "life," not "human."
Being "a human" has a lot of human activity in its usual context, relationships for instance. Which is not the context of a fetus, and hence the resistance to saying a fetus is a human.
You can say a human in embryo, but not a human.
A dogmatist needs to cultivate a deafness to words but it's not a plus and isn't persuasive to the other side. It's sort of an isolation thing.
Derridean horseshit.
Wittgenstein, not Derrida.
The dogmatist has only one requirement, that other people see the fetus the way he does. But the dogmatist's situation isn't the woman's, for example. His words don't travel.
The dogmatist has only one requirement, that other people see the fetus the way he does. But the dogmatist's situation isn't the woman's, for example. His words don't travel.
Here we have a case where the mother loves the baby and wants the baby to live.
And you're still denying the humanity of her child.
At least religious people have a nice dogma.
Your dogma is fucking mean, brother.
Pure horseshit.
The snark of the original comment At 22 weeks the proper terms are 'fetus' and 'human tissue in fact comes from applying that choice to a case where the parents want the baby and see it as a baby. They have a relationship to it.
I'm just in favor of seeing all the moving parts of the abortion argument.
Amazing. Actually makes me miss Crack.
A lot of the abortion argument is a deliberate decision to be stupid about words.
Be stupid about = deny knowing what you in fact know.
"How bad do the odds normally have to be before a human being is refused treatment?"
In socialized medicines these things are decided by government sponsored committee based on cost/benefit. It is the allocation of scarce resources. In a purely free market system, the patient/client decides, because they are allocating their own resources. In between the two extremes is where the question becomes a big guessing game.
A friend was diagnosed with fairly early stage pancreatic cancer. Another friend, a Canadien physician, said that in Canada they wouldn't have treated her. Being in the USA, she got her treatment and is doing fine many years later.
It's lucky there's no tradition of playing the national anthem at births.
Birthright citizenship might require a national anthem be played.
"How bad do the odds normally have to be before a human being is refused treatment?"
In socialized medicines these things are decided by government sponsored committee based on cost/benefit.
AKA Death Panels
A childfree male can avoid all the outlandish costs of OB/GYN by refusing all health insurance, flying instead to Mexico, Costa Rica, Brazil, Argentina, Hungary, Czech Republic, India, and Thailand for medical and dental care, all the while working as a non-benefited and high-salaried contract programmer.
This will improve his health and help with his sex life. We have examples in Jesus and St Paul, and nowadays apparently in popes, cardinals, bishops, and priests.
A dogmatist needs to cultivate a deafness to words but it's not a plus and isn't persuasive to the other side. It's sort of an isolation thing.
To what end do you practice your dogma? My bias is towards human life throughout our evolution. I recognize terms of art and use them in a context where they are most suitable. You indulge in semantic games to direct attention, but to what end?
I've often suspected that rhhardin isn't human but is some kind of soul-less robot.
FYI Canadian hospitals have level 4 NICUS.
Halifax hospital, 23 week old baby.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/prince-edward-island/pei-paizlee-rose-baby-1.4674850
Many Joe country hospitals may not have a level 4 NICUS. Is isn't surprising. The problem with giving birth at a Country Joe hospital with a 23 or 24 or 25 week old is the challenge of keeping the baby alive through flight or auto transfer to a Level 4. This transfer is difficult for the baby.
For a 23 week old it's critically important to already be at a hospital with a level 4 NICU. You need a hospital that has the equipment & training in place.
And yes, of course western developed countries like Japan and Canada have NICUs capable of caring for a 23 or 24 week old. It, however, is not guaranteed that a 23 week old will survive. Every week, every day the child can stay in womb increases chances of survival in those very very early weeks. One of my friends gave birth at week 28. A much better situation then 23, but still it was a good idea to be at a hospital with a level 4 Nicu.
mockturtle:
Soul-less robots everywhere are offended by your remark.
This story is principally about a mother, a father, their child, and a woman who acknowledged the humanity - process, state, and quality -- of her child even when sustaining her child's evolution placed her own life at risk. Responsibility and sacrifice is the definition of heroism.
If there's a cost/benefit analysis to be done concerning my family's health care, I want my family to be doing the analysis.
lgv: In socialized medicines these things are decided by government sponsored committee based on cost/benefit.
DBQ: AKA Death Panels
Reminder, Iceland successfully eliminated Down Syndrome births.
If you were to read Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations (which I recommend) you would recognize what @rhhardin is doing as a particular kind of analysis of the way language is used--an analysis that can shed a lot of light on aspects of life, and sometimes sheds less light but reveals fascinating puzzles, paradoxes, insightful new ways of seeing things. It can take some getting used to, however.
It can take some getting used to, however.
If anyone cares to.
rhhardin reminds me of grad school. These games are important. They help you think through what you really think. And they reveal the machinations the clever use to prevent you from thinking.
But rhhardin is a person
Prove it.
""'Can you help me?' he pleaded, explaining that his wife, Molli, was 22 weeks pregnant, and her life was at risk. Their baby was probably in danger, as well. His son needed to be born — soon."
At 22 weeks the proper terms are 'fetus' and 'human tissue.'"
I consider myself moderately pro-life. I favor some restrictions on abortions, but would never dream of instituting a blanket ban. But it is sentiments like this that make me feel loathing for some of the Pro-Choice crowd. Pretending there is no moral worth to the 'fetus' makes the person holding that idea seem absolutely monstrous. And I would ask that person, when exactly is that magical moment, when the 'human tissue' transforms into the most precious thing in the world?
Not everyone thinks in the same way. Or processes information the same. Or has the ability to absorb information equally.
Some people are emotional and process from that angle. Others are more analytical. Different strokes for different folks. Deep thinking. Shallow thinking. Quick to decisions. Thinking thoughts that others have given you. Verus.... Thinking so far outside of the box that the box doesn't even exist. And so on and so on.
My brother, who was a systems analyst for the Mars program, a talented musician and all around very very smart is also slightly on the Asperberg/Autistic line. When discussing an issue or anything, he often comes up with a way of looking at the problem from a completely different angle that we might never have considered. I may not agree, but it always, ultimately makes sense.
Not being emotional or seeming to lack empathy doesn't mean that the person doesn't know or recognize empathy. That factor is just not as important as other data and other input to reach the conclusion.
I also am (likely) on the spectrum. It has been helpful in my work and find it to be inconsequential if my personal relationships with acquaintances are not full of touchy feelie emotive moments. I save those things for when they count, when they matter and for whom they matter.
So...Just because someone isn't just the SAME as you, doesn't make it all bad :-) Even soulless robots really can have souls. Plus we can actually learn from each other. There is a concept!
Thanks for the lecture, DBQ. ;-)
I've often suspected that rhhardin isn't human but is some kind of soul-less robot.
And, if you notice, you're using soul as indicating relations to others ("he has no soul") and linking it to being a human.
That's how the words work.
Now use it on fetuses, and you have the moving parts of the abortion debate.
The best way to argue the moving parts of the abortion debtae is to argue whether fetuses have a soul. Which is to say, relations to others. Which is to say, they do if the parents want him, and not if the parents don't. As I claimed many times before.
Useagewise, the body isolates us, the soul links us to others.
As for the future, abortion will be banned, but not because of anything being argued, but because of the population decline. Too much choice wipes out the population.
when exactly is that magical moment, when the 'human tissue' transforms into the most precious thing in the world?
Apparently not when the mother chose to have the child, yet they persist in calling themselves pro-choice, when they are really just pro-abortion.
Rhhardin, why do you think a 'soul' is defined by a relationship to other human beings? Why not only a relationship to God?
So... When and by whose choice (or Choice) does a human life, fetus, offspring, baby, couch potato, acquire and retain the right to life?
You seem to be conflating 'soul' with 'heart' [in the non-anatomical sense].
I've often suspected that rhhardin isn't human but is some kind of soul-less robot.
What we are witnessing is the banality of evil in person.
Rhhardin, why do you think a 'soul' is defined by a relationship to other human beings? Why not only a relationship to God?
It's the same thing. Religion is the poeticization of ethics.
So... When and by whose choice (or Choice) does a human life, fetus, offspring, baby, couch potato, acquire and retain the right to life?
That's a legal matter. Whatever people decide is the rule. At birth is when society intuitively cares about the matter, and it can be pushed back by cuteness a certain way with sonograms.
I'm just outlining the mechanics of pushing by noticing how the words you push with work. Once that's seen, the dogmatic arguments drop out, on both sides.
It's a case of what do we want, then, rather than contesting absolutisms.
I've often suspected that rhhardin isn't human but is some kind of soul-less robot.
What we are witnessing is the banality of evil in person.
Arendt meant that evil comes in the form of support for common decencies. I don't think curiosity was high on the list but you never know.
Bertrand Russell, in recommending hiring Wittgenstein at Cambridge, said Wittgenstein had a lot of unusual and interesting ideas that Russell certainly hoped were wrong.
Different times.
Religion is the poeticization of ethics.
I said nothing of 'religion'. Religion is a system man concocts to appease the god or gods.
When I was young philosophy was very important to me. I read a lot of it, and took courses in it; I read, e.g., Wittgenstein and Russell's criticisms of Wittgenstein, and became moderately conversant in their views. And so on, and so forth. When I reached middle age philosophy was still important, but less so; and much less so as time went on. Now I am largely indifferent to it or at the least unmoved and unimpressed by it. I find much of it, most of it, as ephemeral as cloud castles although, often, and certainly, just as pretty in their aspect. I won't say why this is so to me except to say that what matters now, to me, is best expressed by T.P. Cameron in his poem "The Magpies of Picardy," in particular the final lines:
Two things have altered not
Since the world first began
The beauty of the wild green earth
And the bravery of Man.
P.S. Abortion is murder, the "magical moment" occurs at the instant of conception, and soul-less robots do NOT have souls.
A couple of months ago I encountered a guy in the hospital who also had no control over the nonsensical gibberish that came out of his mouth.
What "support for common decencies" did Eichmann exhibit??
I said nothing of 'religion'. Religion is a system man concocts to appease the god or gods.
Everything you can say or learn about God is a commandment. God is merciful means be merciful like him. The only thing around to be merciful to is others.
What "support for common decencies" did Eichmann exhibit??
Support for the family, for the fatherland, for the purity of the Aryian race. That's how it all got started.
To recognize evil isn't so easy as popular culture makes it out to be. It takes intellectual effort. A lost lesson.
Everything you can say or learn about God is a commandment.
Nonsense.
And the bravery of Man.
And the bravery of Woman... to be responsible even when her own life is at risk. This is something heroic. A myth worth repeating.
Now I am largely indifferent to [philosophy] or at the least unmoved and unimpressed by it. I find much of it, most of it, as ephemeral as cloud castles although, often, and certainly, just as pretty in their aspect.
Maybe you had no use to put it to.
If you had been wondering why computers could not deal intelligently with natural language, you might have been spurred on by Wittgenstein and Derrida instead of bored by them.
Don't be so modest. We can recognize it in our midst quite well.
Religion so far as moral philosophy or the behavioral protocols of enlightenment are concerned, which may have God, god(s), or people as its author.
rather than contesting absolutisms.
If that were true. Notwithstanding semantic games that people play to influence perception, to enjoy comfort in their absolutism, evolution and humanity's interest begin at conception. What may be contested are principles of individual dignity, intrinsic value, and inordinate worth, which are axiomatic or articles of faith.
Everything you can say or learn about God is a commandment.
Nonsense.
"[T]hrough my relation to the Other, I am in touch with God.
The moral relation therefore reunites both self-consciousness and consciousness of God. Ethics is not the corollary of the vision of God, it is that very vision. Ethics is an optic, such that everything I know of God and everything I can hear of His word and reasonably say to Him must find an ethical expression. In the Holy Ark from which the voice of God is heard by Moses, there are only the tablets of the Law. The knowledge of God which we can have and which is expressed in the form of negative attributes, receives a positive meaning from the moral 'God is merciful' which means 'Be merciful like Him.' The attributes of God are given not in the indicative, but in the imperative. The knowledge of God comes to us like a commandment. To know God is to know what must be done..."
Levina, Difficult Freedom, "A Religion for Adults" p.17
n.n.:
Wilson used the term "man" in the ancient and correct Germanic/Indo-European sense: "one (who thinks)" or "one (who is sentient)." It is non-gendered. Until fairly recently it was understood by literate and properly educated people that this was the case. When I was in high school this meaning was so well understood by all that it was not necessary to teach it explicitly. But education since that time has declined and now most people under a certain age mistakenly think that "man" in this context means "male person", hence the creation of linguistic abominations such as "humankind."
Levinas
the term "man" ... It is non-gendered. Until fairly recently it was understood by literate and properly educated people
Yes, of course. My interest was to emphasize the moral potential of the sexes: male and female, man and woman. I'm not playing semantic games for the pleasure.
Notwithstanding semantic games that people play to influence perception, to enjoy comfort in their absolutism, evolution and humanity's interest begin at conception
Why does that not strike you as dogmatism. Are you picturing an army of souls waiting to be implanted in each sperm-egg collision? Where does it come from?
Because the performance of the word soul is going to affect how you think of it. Is not that semantic game about the semantic game important?
Religion is the poeticization of ethics.<
I actually agree with this.
I am agnostic but am reading Malachi Martin's novels about the Vatican again after 25 years.
He even points out in "Vatican" that one of the cardinals was not a believer. Agnostic if not atheist.
Levina, Difficult Freedom, "A Religion for Adults" p.17
Who could argue with such an unassailable source? ;-D
If you had been wondering why computers could not deal intelligently with natural language, you might have been spurred on by Wittgenstein and Derrida instead of bored by them.
I am not bored by Wittgenstein and Derrida. "Bored" is not the word. I respect Wittgenstein; but I also feel sorry for him, after a fashion, and I have no use for him. Not anymore.
I detest Derrida.
n.n wants sex to be for procreation, because it's better sex. The man has something to give the woman, namely sperm, that she wants; rather than just jerking off into her. It's a team sport rather than two individuals, one on the men's team and the other on the women's.
What makes it good sex is that a soul turns up.
Just guessing the argument incentive.
Levinas says the erotic in eroticism is a reference to the future child, an unknowable that makes eroticism possible. The soul for him though is a relation to the future child, not something in the future child.
Wondering if that helps.
Derrida and Wittgenstein both look for literary effects that the analyzer of some system does not manage to control, effects that work against him.
The future child, you could say, is what makes objectifying women impossible, in eroticism. You'd think feminists would like that.
roughcoat/
A few posts back you spoke of working w. surviving members of the Provisional Tank Battalion sent to Bataan--a unit comprised of ANG units from Ky, Illinois, and Wisc? iirc. FYI the Chief medical officer for that overall unit (originally from the Ky unit) survived and wrote not only an eye-witness account but gathered stories from other survivors in other camps, the "Hell ships" and work camps in Japan. I lost it during KATRINA and can't even remember the title, but I'm sure the Library of Congress people could help you dig it out. It's an ABSOLUTE MUST as an original source document and fascinating reading as well..
Levinas is explaining Judaism and is thought to be a scholar on the matter. He's good for Judeo-Christian tradition though.
On the Messiah, who is it who takes on the suffering of others if not the person who says "me?" Everybody is the Messiah.
Moreover that's what makes somebody unique and irreplaceable. Being called.
Everybody's replaceable before that. Some implications for soul there.
Blogger rhhardin said...
The future child, you could say, is what makes objectifying women impossible, in eroticism. You'd think feminists would like that.
Interesting point about this, here.
Measures of subjective well-being indicate that women’s happiness has declined both absolutely and relative to men. The paradox of women’s declining relative well-being is found across various datasets, measures of subjective well-being, and is pervasive across demographic groups and industrialized countries. Relative declines in female happiness have eroded a gender gap in happiness in which women in the 1970s typically reported higher subjective well-being than did men.
So, despite our culture’s progressive turn—a shift in which “expert research” like that of Charles et al. has played no small part—today women are unhappier than they were in the more traditional past.
“For we dissenters, the only choice is to wage our own war against the progressive establishment.”
In “The Death of Eros,” Mark Regnerus describes the important research of Gary Becker, a Nobel Prize-winning economist. Becker, says Regnerus,
documented how the benefits of marriage receded as women’s earning power rose relative to that of men. The years between 1973 and 1983 were decisive. In that decade, young women’s wages climbed steadily while men’s actually fell, never to recover. Women had less reason to marry, and they had less attractive mates should they nonetheless decide to.
The reason, Regnerus explains, is that “equality is the enemy of eros.”
Why do we censor abortion photographs, rhhardin?
Why do we hide the truth?
No market for abortion photographs? Not good click bait, at least I suppose not.
Then you'd get photoshopped abortion photographs too, and a general decline in public morals.
There have been a lot of grapefruit sized tumors in the news but no photographs that I recall. The tumor market is small as well.
No market for abortion photographs?
That's glib and stupid. It's well known that violence sells. "If it bleeds, it leads."
They censor abortions because violence against babies upsets people.
Not you, you're a sociopath.
It upsets normal people. Especially women. That's why we censor, I think, to protect the feelings of women.
Why can't computers deal intelligently with natural language? Computers can't do literary effects.
If it upsets women, women won't watch it, and so it's unprofitable to publish them. Women are the market.
For the record, I never said rhhardin had no soul. What I said was: I've often suspected that rhhardin isn't human but is some kind of soul-less robot.
There have been instances where I suspected something--even often--where my suspicions were without foundation. So there's that. ;-)
You're tap-dancing, mockturtle. Stand your ground! :)
I'm not backing down. I still 'often suspect' it.
Robot tissue.
My daughter, (Melissa Althouse though no relation) is a third year neonatology fellow at Texas Children's in Houston. I know that they don't write off any live birth. While the level 4 NICU is a must for caring for severely premature infants, there is also a necessity for the host of neonatology specialists necessary to care for them. Urban areas have enough neos, (six years of training after med school) but only the largest institutions have the specialist neos, (nine years of training after med school). In less populated areas, there are not enough neonatoligists let alone the other necessary team members. Women with high risk pregnancies should plan to deliver at a hospital with this type of team. People come to Houston from all over the country. Unfortunately, many people live in places where they may not be able to travel to these large hospitals quickly enough.
rhhardin:
n.n wants sex to be for procreation, because it's better sex
This is about selective-child and recycled-child. This is about rights and responsibilities, semantic games, aiding and abetting Planned Parenthood et al, giving comfort to psychopaths (and sociopaths), corrupting science, cruel and unusual punishment, summary abortion of wholly innocent human lives, and the progressive slope. If you want sex only for procreation, that is your choice, go for it. Evolutionary dysfunction and dodo dynasties are a concern, but second to the operation of abortion chambers, Mengele clinics, and progressive corruption.
Are you picturing an army of souls waiting to be implanted
Why do obsess about souls? Why can't you be objective and acknowledge human evolution from conception? You may believe in a soul, but not everyone does. That said, the issue under contention are the principles of individual dignity (e.g. character), intrinsic value (i.e. the difference between a potato and human life), and perhaps inordinate worth (i.e. the value that justifies self-sacrifice). If you believe this can be established with the concept of a soul, then more power to you, go for it.
There is no market for photographs of aborted babies, for the same reason: stability implies profits, so abortion chambers are operated under a layer of privacy. Men and women who are Pro-Choice want to be shielded from the consequences of their Choice before, during, and after. They are the "good" Americans. They want to believe they are "good". They are the Hutu to the Tutsi and vice versa. The slavers until human rights broke their backs. The diversitists until civil rights confronted color judgments.
61 million abortions. Ok, does the US really need 380 million mouth to feed when our water/soil is already at the breaking point? You realize India is a basketcase with 1.5 billion due to their non-existent birth control.
Alex.
There are better ways of preventing pregnancy than abortion.
As far as water and soil go? Well. If i were a betting man I's short corn and soy beans.
Post a Comment