Again not sure

[ogrilion]

linkI'm not sure I like the idea of just writing these kids off, but then again if their chance of survival is that low and using resources treating them reduces the chances for children born with a greater chance anyway, where do you draw the line

Comments

[bright1]

I think the problem here is not one of triage, but of resources. The concern they had about treating such young babies was that they did not have the doctors/beds/funding to cope with the extra work that is caused by rthe extra care and so other areas would suffer.

The soulution is simple yet at the same time very dificult to achiev. Provide extra facilities instead of cutting the care given. The reason its so dificult... well you know that that already. My two cents.

[ogrilion]

exactly, triage, the alocation of available resources.

"More resources" that's allways the answer, and yeh it would work but there aren't the resources to go round.

put in more resources not cut care, were it that easy the NHS would not be in the mess it is.

There is no more resources to alocate.

[bright1]

Well as I said, the soloution is simmple, its just not simple to achiev. (when I mention resourses by the way, I mean the whole range, not just the standard throw money at the problem and hope it goes away aproach that every government seems to apply. I mean resourses like more beds, more + updated equipment, more + updated medicines, more staff including specialists, updated teaching tequineques and resourses, ect. Of course this is next to imposible to achieve, especialy when the governement just throws money at it and prays real hard.)
Sometimes the state of this country leaves me fealing realy rather depressed... but then I just think, "well at least i'm not living in France!" :D hehe.

[ogrilion]

so when just alocating the required resources is not possible triage must be performed. All the resourses you are mentioning require money which just is not there as well as management which is not there.

[neuralbuddha]

I'm not sure this is just about resources but also the unpredicted potential of medical technology. Theoretically, the viability of premature babies could become earlier and earlier, passing the point of abortion (which it already has, occasionally) and eventually going all the way back to conception. This would require some sort of artificial womb arrangement but why not?

As technological development is not always predictable, instead of focussing on particular issues, we need some open minded discussion of general ethical principles.

[ogrilion]

true. I don't like the idea of growing children, I.e an artificial womb scenario. Ethically, if treating a given child will not harm the chances of another past an extent proportioal to the chance of recovery I think treating children who are past the stage of requiriung a womb (artificial or not) shold be done under most circomstances, however i think if children require an artificail womb then it's going a bit brave new world.