Saturday, April 01, 2006


Recently, The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists in the UK - a professional docotr's organization in the UK - took a public position AGAINST giving medical care to extremely premature babies - babies gestated less than 25 weeks when born. BBC:
Early babies dubbed bed blockers

A row has broken out after experts described the costly treatment of very premature babies as "bed blocking". A report by the birth specialists' professional body said the care of sicker babies was compromising services for healthier babies and their mothers.

Costs must be considered as experts became able to save more and more earlier babies, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists added. ... The RCOG report to the Nuffield Council on Bio-ethics said:
"Some weight should be given to economic considerations as there is a real issue in neo-natal units of 'bed blocking'; whereby women have to be transferred in labour to other units, compromising both their and their babies' care. "One of the problems of the 'success' of neonatal intensive care is that the practitioners are always pushing the boundaries. "There has been a constant need to expand numbers of cots to cover the increasing tendency to try and rescue baby at lower and lower gestations."
President of the Royal College of Paediatrics Professor Alan Craft said many paediatricians would support moves to bring in a model followed in the Netherlands of no active intervention for these very early babies. ...

Pressure group Patient Concern said the attitude of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists towards premature babies would horrify potential parents.

The group's co-director Joyce Robins said: "Babies born at 24 weeks have nearly a 40% chance of survival. What is the next step? Withholding treatment from anyone with cancer, heart or respiratory disease who has only a 40% chance of a worthwhile life?

"Once we have doctors marking people for life or death on this inhumane basis, we shall find ourselves in a terrifying society."
ER UM.... they're not JUST doctors; in the UK - because medicine is SOCIALIZED - they're the GOVERNMENT, and they often try to save the GOVERNMENT money. And because a SOCIALIZED healthcare system means RATIONING care, it also means that the GOVERNMENT picks "winner & losers" and even puts its OWN INTEREST into the equation. This bit of news PROVES that doctors are willing to ration care to save the government money.

The proposal to withhold care to save money is an IMMORAL PROPOSAL. But if socialists REALLY want to save money, then I suggest [sarcastically!] that we can solve our HEALTHCARE, MEDICARE, MEDICAID and SOCIAL SECURITY problems all at once and very easily: we need only pass a mandate (that's Left-speak for pass a law) that would do THREE THINGS:
(1) make it ILLEGAL to give ANY MEDICAL CARE to anyone over 70;

(2) make it illegal to give any medical care to any baby gestated less than 25 weeks;

and (3) make it illegal for people below the poverty line to have children.
Right now, most people get most of their medical care in the last few years of their life - and for most of us that's after we're 70.

Our increased longevity is one reason that Social Security is goiung bankrupt: When it was designed in the 1930's the retirement age and the average life-span were BOTH 65, so Soc Sec didn't have many long-payouts then; now it does!

But, if we made it ILLEGAL to giove healthcare to people overe 70 - and just let OLD PEOPLE DIE - then instead of a deficit we'd have a surplus - in Soc. Sec. AND Medicare! YUP: We would reap a double saving: We'd save tons of Soc. Sec and tons of Medicare. What good are old people anyhow: they are unproductive, and besides they're no longer "with-it" or hip. Also: let's raise the age of retirement to 70! WE SAVE EVEN MORE!

And by making it illegal for poor people to have children we can effectively end poverty in a generation! (Heck: we should probably just EUTHANIZE people on their 70th birthday - it would save the government money and keep real estate prices low! Old people are just taking uo space that young people need! And preemies are not worth the time or money!) [SARCASM OFF!]

Each of these immoral proposals are the logical extension of socialism. And things like this happen in China where they practice infanticide and forced abortions to keep the population "under control."

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

It's not as though any of these people have a problem with ending the life of the child at 25 weeks or less while still in the womb--extending the policy to cover infants that have been born is the next logical step. We are seeing firsthand the tragic conclusion of the long terrifying journey begun with the legalization of abortion. How can anyone be surprised at this? I'm not.