Preemie "left to die" by doctors after mother gives birth just 2 days before 22-week care limit

I love the British press. The following sorts of stories could and should be published by MSM every day in America, because very young preemies are being shelved to die every day in America without being assessed for viability. The line is arbitrarily drawn.

But humanizing very young preemies would be anathema to the abortion industry. And so we latch on to honesty from across the pond. This just posted by the Daily Mail:

jayden 1.jpg

A young mother's premature baby died in her arms after doctors refused to help because it was born just before 22-week cut-off point for treatment.

Sarah Capewell, 23, gave birth to her son Jayden when she was 21 weeks and 5 days into her pregnancy.

Although doctors refused to place the baby in intensive care, Jayden lived for 2 hours before he passed away at James Paget Hospital in Gorleston, Norfolk, last October....

Miss Capewell's desperate pleas for her tiny son to be admitted to the hospital's special care baby unit were rejected.

She is now fighting to establish radical new guidelines on when infants should be given intensive care and has created a website called Justice For Jayden.

Since the site was set up in January, Miss Capewell has received messages of support from 260k women from around the world.

Miss Capewell... said: "When I asked about my baby's human rights, the attitude of the doctors seemed to be that he did not have any.

"They said before 22 weeks he was just a foetus."

Her campaign is being backed by local MP Tony Wright.

He said: When a woman wants to give the best chance to her baby they should surely be afforded that opportunity."...

[Isn't that a "pro-choice" position?]

Miss Capewell, who has a 5-year-old daughter, has a history of miscarriages and after bleeding heavily 12 weeks into her pregnancy with Jayden, she was closely monitored by doctors.

She was rushed to a hospital by ambulance at 21 weeks and her waters broke at 21 weeks and 3 days.

She said: "Because I had not reached 22 weeks, they did not allow me injections to stop the labour or steroid injections to help mature the baby's lungs."

[American doctors would typically try to stop labor if it hadn't gone too far, give steroid shots, and take precautions to stop infection. They wouldn't rely on arbitrary dates. I wonder if this is an outcome of socialized medicine.]

Miss Capewell was told the baby was likely to be stillborn and as her contractions continued, a chaplain arrived to discuss bereavement and planning a funeral.

jaydens foot.jpg

"When he was born, he put out his arms and legs and pushed himself over," said Miss Capewell.

"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.'

Miss Capewell said she had to argue her right to receive birth and death certificates which meant she could have a proper funeral.

The medical guidance for NHS hospitals, limiting care of the most premature babies, was drawn up by the Nuffield Council on Bioethics in 2006.

The guidelines are clear: no baby below 22 weeks gestation should be resuscitated.

[I think babies born alive should be assessed immediately at birth for viability, and not sentenced to death just because of the usually approximated age determined prebirth.]

jaydens hand.jpg

The latest major study on survival of premature babies shows that at 23 weeks, just 16% will survive - a statistic which has barely changed in a decade.

But Miss Capewell said: 'After Jayden's death, I looked into other cases and I could not believe that one little girl, Amillia Taylor, is perfectly healthy after being born in FL in 2006 at 21 weeks and six days - and Jayden was heavier than her.

'There are thousands of women who have experienced this.

'The doctors say the babies won't survive but how do they know if they are not giving them a chance?'

She said she had heard heartbreaking stories of babies who lived as long as 5 days in such circumstances.

'Women who went through it 10 years ago have phoned me up in tears. You can't get past it because no one tried.

'You feel you let your baby down and you are left with that guilt every single day. You feel you should have got out of that bed, you should have gone to another hospital.'...

[HT: Franklin R.]


Comments:

:O

Poor Jayden...

Posted by: Vannah at September 8, 2009 3:21 PM


This is where we are headed in the US if we let this socialized medicine become law.

Posted by: Maria at September 8, 2009 3:35 PM


Go Sarah go!! Fight, fight, fight!! Praying for you and behind you 100%!!

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at September 8, 2009 3:37 PM


I second what Carla said! Go fight the good fight for Jayden!

Posted by: Ak Krystal at September 8, 2009 3:43 PM


I'm 22 weeks pregnant today, and this absolutely hurts my heart :( They didn't even try to stop the labor?? Why?????

Posted by: Jenny Z at September 8, 2009 4:08 PM


Everything would be all right if you folks would just drink Obama's kool-aid....

Posted by: Doyle Chadwick at September 8, 2009 4:21 PM


This is most definitely the cesspool mix of legalized abortion and socialized medicine. Sickening. That poor baby. His poor mother. This is absolutely terrible.

I will fight like nothing else to keep such a horrific thing from happening in my beloved America.

Posted by: xalisae at September 8, 2009 4:27 PM


I am so furious after reading this. Maybe if Jayden was a terrorist they would have given him treatment.

They wouldn't even give him a shot at living. Losers. I'm surprised the father didn't kill somebody at that hospital.

At least the UK press did report this, the sinister, evil left wing press in this country would hidden the story.

Posted by: Jasper at September 8, 2009 5:01 PM


Well, well, well. Little Jayden is getting Obamacare in Britain!

Dr. Emmanuel must be proud.

Someone should get Sarah Capewell over here so she can go on tour at the remaining townhalls.

Posted by: carder at September 8, 2009 5:35 PM


This is horrible and tragic and what is ahead for America if we don't stop "universal health care".

Posted by: LizFromNebraska at September 8, 2009 5:50 PM


'You feel you let your baby down and you are left with that guilt every single day. You feel you should have got out of that bed, you should have gone to another hospital.'...

You can't go to another hospital. You go where the NHS tells you to go and you live or die based on their ruling.

This is what Obama wants for America.

Posted by: Jacqueline at September 8, 2009 5:56 PM


You know, it's pretty sad that pregnant women have to hold their breath and hope they make it to 22 weeks (or whatever arbitrary limit their hospital has set) so that just in case they give birth prematurely, they might have some hope of getting their child some help. I'm sure not all pregnant women feel this way, but I've had similar thoughts and fears with this pregnancy, personally (as of today, I'm 19w 1d - just 3 more weeks to go...). At least let me make it far enough so that the child can get some help if something happens. If the unthinkable happens, at least let me get far enough to get a death certificate so we can have a proper burial.

I've heard one story right here in the U.S. where a mother gave birth prematurely and lied about her due date because she knew the doctors wouldn't help if they knew that the child was actually under their "limit" for trying to help a preemie (the baby survived). It's sad when a mom has to lie to get her baby lifesaving treatment.

I agree completely with the article - each child should be assessed on their own merits for viability. The ones that showed promising signs would not be left to die for no good reason that way. Every pediatrician knows that every child develops along his/her own timetable and it's nonsensical to assume that every child develops at exactly the same rate before birth. It just doesn't make sense to set an arbitrary gestational limit and not even consider the child's actual condition.

This poor mother and child. How terrible it would be to be a parent and try so desperately to get lifesaving medical treatment for your child and to be coldly and arbitrarily denied. What a terrible mix of rage and grief the parents of this child must feel now. I am so thankful that Jayden's mom is going to fight to make sure that the same thing doesn't happen to other children in her son's situation. My thoughts and prayers go out to her. I certainly hope she succeeds and that this will bring the situation to light in other countries as well - people need to know this is happening and realize what it means for their children.

Posted by: army_wife at September 8, 2009 6:36 PM


With the crew Our Dear Leader has assembled, I fear that Jayden's story would not even be discussed after a year or two.
Am I wrong to think it is possible that Dr. Zeke the Freak would declare it not cost effective to treat any child born before 36 weeks? I believe his writings indicate that is possible. Particularly children with down syndrome.
I do hope Jayden's succeeds in her fight in England.

Posted by: fishydude at September 8, 2009 7:15 PM


army_wife: I think that was the little baby Amilia Taylor, mentioned in this story.

Posted by: LizFromNebraska at September 8, 2009 7:35 PM


I forgot to add that Jayden is beautiful and has an amazing mother!

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at September 8, 2009 7:36 PM


what a dreadful sin this is!

I don't think this is so much the fact that there is socialized medicine in the UK
what I think is that they have an arbitrary cutoff for abortions (I think it's 24 wks)and I think this mentality has seeped into their health care for preemies.
So essentially any baby born under 24 or 22 weeks is not going to be treated no matter what the circumstances because it's a foetus - a nonperson - not entitled to treatment. Period.
It might be argued that part of mentality has to do with cost but I really think it's more the foetus mentality.

Other socialized medicine countries such as Canada would treat the baby IF he/she showed such strong attempts to live. I think the fear of being sued would be a strong incentive.

Posted by: angel at September 8, 2009 7:37 PM


But humanizing very young preemies would be anathema to the abortion industry.

missed this little tidbit but yes I think this is it in a nutshell.
If you can save a baby at 22wks/21 weeks - well it's a baby. It's a person, a human being and aborting an unborn baby at this age - what is that?
murder? it's not a blob of tissue.....

ah the tangled webs we weave for ourselves....

Posted by: angel at September 8, 2009 7:41 PM


At least he knew his mother's touch before he passed, though he should not have died. There are children much farther along left to die in dirty laundry bins-Jill Stanek has witnessed some of their deaths. Think it can't happen in America? It already is-and it's legal.

Posted by: Jill Guidry at September 8, 2009 8:02 PM


The Left sees everything in dollar signs, even the tiniest little babe.

God help them, God help us all!

Posted by: LB at September 8, 2009 8:03 PM


For 2 lousy days away from being 22 weeks, no one could think outside the box? This is so horribly awful, and tragic beyond words.

Some "choice" this woman had.

Posted by: Luana at September 8, 2009 8:45 PM


The culture of death is broadening its scope before our very eyes. This is yet another example of how the power of the state trumps the sanctity of innocent human life.

Where is "choice"? Did this mother have "choice"?
Isn't this the drumbeat we have heard unceasingly? But the "choice" advocates are strangely silent now. They will pull back on their insistence that the government stay out of decisions made between the doctor and patient now that their silence might buy them the ultimate prize, i.e. unlimited taxpayer funding of abortion.

They are so irrationally fixated on abortion rights, they will grant government the ultimate authority for their own health care decisions and those of their loved ones for the sake of achieving the end game victory of unfettered access to abortion.

We, "choice" advocates included, will rue the day the government became the arbiter of life decisions.

Posted by: Jerry at September 8, 2009 8:46 PM


Shame on the medical profession for purposely ignoring Jayden's needs for critical care! He deserved a chance to live.

Posted by: LauraLoo at September 8, 2009 8:56 PM


Where are those that support the killing of babies Jayden's age via partial birth abortion or induced labor abortion? Helllloooooo....

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at September 9, 2009 5:56 AM


God, what is WRONG with some people? Anyone who wouldn't help a baby fighting for life doesn't deserve to be a doctor or anything even remotely related to the medical profession. People would be outraged about a doctor who kicked his dog, so why can't some people muster more outrage about this? That poor little kid. I hope at least his death will manage to change things for other babies.

Posted by: Marauder at September 9, 2009 7:25 AM


I am a pediatric nurse and I suggest you all ask why the US has the worst infant mortality stats of the industrialized world, and also the worse for premature infants.

Not one prior commenter has mentioned "infant mortality" and I don't know if it is because people are ignorant of the current US system's huge failure on infants or it doesn't fit political views.

BTW we also have abysmal "under five years" mortality rates here in the States.

Posted by: LIsa at September 9, 2009 9:51 AM


Okay, LIsa, I'll ask!

Why does the US has the worst infant mortality stats of the industrialized world, and also the worse for premature infants?

Posted by: Marie at September 9, 2009 9:58 AM


I've never heard of an infant mortality rate in the U.S., Lisa. What is it? :(

Children's rights and children's health are so in the gutters right now that it's getting to be too overwhelming...

:(

Posted by: Vannah at September 9, 2009 10:04 AM


infant mortality rates are in all countries all the time. Life happens naturally but sometimes (like in Jayden's case) he HAD a chance at life but the doctors refused to care for him.

And Lisa, we're not all ignorant, we're just expressing our heart break for the mother and a life that was lost because of someone who was afraid of a a malpractice lawsuit.

You should read this blog more and you can learn for yourself just how non-ignorant we are. Jill posts about many differnt pro-life topics and if there is a particular topic that you have info about please, please, please e-mail her!

Posted by: Ak Krystal at September 9, 2009 10:09 AM


This is so sad. I can't believe that health professionals would stand by and watch a baby die.

Rest in peace, Jayden.

Posted by: Phillymiss at September 9, 2009 10:38 AM


I agree, Phillymiss. How could they? I just can't understand people sometimes. :(

Posted by: Vannah at September 9, 2009 11:40 AM


Lisa,

Or you could've just explained to us why the US has a low infant morality rate instead of telling us we're ignorant or clinging to a faulty political narrative...that would've been a bit more helpful.

Posted by: Janette at September 9, 2009 12:39 PM


Marie, et al:

I found this article which states:

Part of the reason U.S. infant mortality is rising in comparison to other countries is because while the U.S. rate has remained fairly stable, many other countries have greatly improved their health care systems.

"There has been a huge shift in infant mortality rates in what we call 'middle-income countries,'" said Christopher P. Howson, vice-president for global programs for the March of Dimes, referring to nation like Cuba and the Czech Republic.

Howson attributes much of this improvement to enhanced vaccination programs, improved nutrition and public hygiene, and a safer environment for families.

"We should look at these countries for lessons that we can learn and apply back in our country," said Howson.

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/GlobalHealth/story?id=1266515

Please remember, that our current health system is pretty abysmal. I think the reason we don't hear anymore stories about insurance companies denying care here is because it's very common. Insurance companies make billions of dollars by denying people care. They are one of the few companies that have actually INCREASED profits during the recession, as the number of uninsured or underinsured americans rose rapidly. I wonder why people still want them running our health care system. Insurance companies don't care about our health, they care about their profit margin.

Posted by: prettyinpink at September 9, 2009 12:50 PM


Marie, et al:

I found this article which states:

Part of the reason U.S. infant mortality is rising in comparison to other countries is because while the U.S. rate has remained fairly stable, many other countries have greatly improved their health care systems.

"There has been a huge shift in infant mortality rates in what we call 'middle-income countries,'" said Christopher P. Howson, vice-president for global programs for the March of Dimes, referring to nation like Cuba and the Czech Republic.

Howson attributes much of this improvement to enhanced vaccination programs, improved nutrition and public hygiene, and a safer environment for families.

"We should look at these countries for lessons that we can learn and apply back in our country," said Howson.

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/GlobalHealth/ story?id=1266515

Please remember, that our current health system is pretty abysmal. I think the reason we don't hear anymore stories about insurance companies denying care here is because it's very common. Insurance companies make billions of dollars by denying people care. They are one of the few companies that have actually INCREASED profits during the recession, as the number of uninsured or underinsured americans rose rapidly. I wonder why people still want them running our health care system. Insurance companies don't care about our health, they care about their profit margin.

Posted by: prettyinpink at September 9, 2009 12:50 PM


Arg, I have a post held up for some reason if one of the mods can help me :)

Posted by: prettyinpink at September 9, 2009 12:51 PM


Gotcha covered, PiP

Posted by: Bobby Bambino Author Profile Page at September 9, 2009 1:05 PM


Pip,

Do you consider it likely that government-run healthcare will do a better job of providing important services and treatment options currently being denied individuals in the current situation?

When insurance companies worry about their profit margins, they find ways of making more money by providing fewer services/charging more for these services. When a government-run system needs more money, where does it come from?

I agree that the system is flawed. Let's assess those flaws and come up with solutions.

Let's compare the WH (with this plan) to a mom who finds her son with a stolen candy bar. Rather than telling the child that stealing isn't okay, and making the child return the item, the mom takes the candy bar, and eats it. Then, she sends the child to bed without dinner. The child experiences consequences, and might *maybe* glean that stealing is wrong, but then sees his mother openly contradict her own statement. Meanwhile, reparations are never made to the store for the candy bar that's been stolen.

I'm looking for a moral and inclusive solution, not just a punishment for insurance companies and a payday for the White House.

Posted by: MaryRose at September 9, 2009 1:21 PM


"Do you consider it likely that government-run healthcare will do a better job of providing important services and treatment options currently being denied individuals in the current situation?"

It's likely. It depends on what kind of health plan we have. Either way we do it, HCR needs some intervention and I don't mind the government being involved. I'm somewhat skeptical on what they are going to do with insurance companies though considering what kind of lobbying force they have. Now if you have a better idea to provide services without any government intervention, please, do let us know.

"When insurance companies worry about their profit margins, they find ways of making more money by providing fewer services/charging more for these services."
I guess if you don't believe that health care is a right, then this doesn't sound like a bad idea. Now, when they provide fewer services in that they refuse to pay for a teenager's cancer treatment or they refuse to pay for a preemie's care, then that is not a tragedy? If they charge more for their services and more people become uninsured, whose care do YOU pay for in the ER when somethings happened to them?

"When a government-run system needs more money, where does it come from?"
Think about it this way. HCR in general means a less expensive health care system and LESS spending. So that means you pay less for health care out of YOUR tax money and everyone can get decent coverage. Again, this is bad??

While the situation above is a tragedy, it is something we need to make sure doesn't happen here. No health care systems are quite alike and we can find ways to make HCR more to the benefit of the US, freedom-oriented way. It may provide more freedom than insurance companies and HMO's give you anyway.

"I agree that the system is flawed. Let's assess those flaws and come up with solutions."

And what is your solution?

I'm not sure I quite understand your example. Can you elaborate more about which part you are concerned with HCR?

"I'm looking for a moral and inclusive solution, not just a punishment for insurance companies and a payday for the White House."

What is your moral and inclusive solution?
If making insurance companies provide adequate insurance is a punishment, then sure, make them pay. I consider them one of the most insidious and dangerous industries in America today and it's shameful what they can get away with, with the lobbying power they have and their ultimate control over our care.
I'm not sure about payday for the WH, though. What are they getting paid for? Are you talking about them getting credit for reform if it happens? If so, then yeah, give htem credit for what they do, hold them accountable for what they do. It's not like Obama himself is pocketing the money. Maybe you can explain this a little more.

In full disclosure, I don't fully agree with Obama's plan but in general I think having a public option or a permutation thereof will be better for everyone involved. Looking at what works and what doesn't is a good start and I think we should look deeper into some issues regarding the plan. I'm looking forward to hearing his address tonight and assessing it further. But yeah, there are some things I have been writing to my Congressmans about but the total panic that is occurring about it is so bizarre to me.

Posted by: prettyinpink at September 9, 2009 1:42 PM


Hi, PrettyinPink. How are you? :)

Posted by: Vannah at September 9, 2009 2:04 PM


Good Vannah and you?

Posted by: prettyinpink at September 9, 2009 2:07 PM


I'm fine. I'm attempting to feel sorry for myself for having to do calculus homework. Then I think about all of the people who do not have access to school and I try and find some way to rationalize still pitying myself...

Alas. Sooner or later I'm just going to have to accept things and tell myself, "Get over it."

:)

What have you been up to lately?

Posted by: Vannah at September 9, 2009 2:17 PM


Not too much. Studying for a string of tests next week basically. An interesting assignment for my "Professional Issues in PA Practice" class is to watch the address tonight and write in four sentences why he did it and if it was effective. I'm going over to my friend's place to party it up and study for tests. I"m with ya, school can be very blah :P

Posted by: prettyinpink at September 9, 2009 2:26 PM


Or maybe the infant mortality rate is so much better in countries with socialized medicine because they count deaths like Jayden's as "miscarriage", and don't bother trying to help these children, who coincidentally are more likely to die later on in life (as infants) when we help those children actually reach infancy and childhood here, and there they just write them off as a miscarriage and make their numbers look better.

Posted by: xalisae at September 9, 2009 2:31 PM


Woo hoo, party!

Screw calculus, I'm watching Law & Order and working on astronomy instead...

Posted by: Vannah at September 9, 2009 2:34 PM


Go for it girl. Law and Order beats math homework any day.

Posted by: prettyinpink at September 9, 2009 2:46 PM


"Screw calculus..."

Ouch! Them's fightin words!

Posted by: Bobby Bambino Author Profile Page at September 9, 2009 2:57 PM


"..health care in our country is pretty abysmal..." PIP.

No one ever said it was perfect, but one thing is certain--with nationlized health care it will not improve. There has to be a common sense way of approaching bottlenecks in care delivery. But, with politics and agendas muddying the waters, it seems Obama/Pelosi/Reid are hell bent on ramming this down our throats. And this, in spite of the fact that England and Canada are now moving in the other direction.

BTW, for all the naysayers who claim there will be no "death panels", what would you call the group that made the rules which stipulated Jayden must die? Obviously, they are not going to name themselves a "death panel" but the end result is the same nonethless.

Kudos to Sarah Palin for calling a spade a spade.

Posted by: Jerry at September 9, 2009 4:18 PM


I'd say that it beats math. But then again a tonsillectomy beats math, too, as far as I'm concerned.

Fightin' words!

A tumble weed blows through...

:D

Posted by: Vannah at September 9, 2009 4:19 PM


They don't have a government run single payer system in Switzerland, and yet everyone has quality health care. Socialized medicine is a lazy solution to a complex problem.The Brits and Canadians act like their's is the only answer.

Posted by: j at September 9, 2009 4:51 PM


Pip,

I'm no expert on the subject. I'm just pointing out that replacing one corrupt system with another isn't a solution. It's laziness.

And if you think that there won't be payouts to special interest groups, and from special interest groups to those who supported them, you're greatly naive. If you think that socialized healthcare won't result in $$ in the pockets of those who are supporting it loudest, you really need to take a good look at how our system works.

Absolutely, the current healthcare companies should experience the repercussions of dirty practice! YES! But the way to do that isn't to cripple them and replace them with government healthcare. I don't see it working well elsewhere, and I don't want to see it here. I believe there is an alternative that isn't (a) inflated healthcare costs or (b) socialized healthcare. I believe we're not looking for a middle ground. And I believe the reason is because of those special interest groups I made reference to.

I'm not an expert in the field. I don't have the answer. I need to do a great deal more research before I have an answer at all. But yes, I expect the experts in the field to have a better idea than this.

Posted by: MaryRose at September 10, 2009 3:41 AM


"But the way to do that isn't to cripple them and replace them with government healthcare."

They aren't being replaced. That is not in the bill. The current health proposal is not socialized medicine, it is not a single payer system. From what I can tell, if it executed well I think that the plan in place is a good middle ground.

Posted by: prettyinpink at September 10, 2009 7:25 AM


"They aren't being replaced. That is not in the bill."

It doesn't HAVE to be in the bill for the bill to cause it to happen. It would be a natural progression of events after the government stepped in to derail the market.

Posted by: xalisae at September 10, 2009 12:40 PM


Thanks, X. No, PIP, it isn't in the bill, but it IS a natural progression. Besides which, our President has in the past made statements regarding his plan for an eventual single-payer system. You think that because he's now President those ideals have gone away, even though he seems very clearly to be heading our country in that direction?

Posted by: MaryRose at September 10, 2009 3:19 PM