Rylan and Obama supporters please defend this stance for me.

socal57che

socal57che

Active Member
Originally Posted by Cranberry
http:///forum/post/2723980
I can't speak to the politics of it all... all I know about is preemies.
Would a decrease in botched abortions decrease the number of premies that are considered untreatable?
If so, it stands to reason that a decrease or elimination of abortions altogether would make your job much easier to handle.
I know all premies are not the result of abortions gone bad, but it stands to reason that if they are eliminated...it would eliminate the need for this thread entirely.
 
cranberry

cranberry

Active Member
What?
Edit: Oh heck... nevermind. You are wandering off into the abortion debate. I ain't following that topic change either.....
 
darthtang aw

darthtang aw

Active Member
Cranberry it is late and I just got off work soI am not totally processing things as well as usual...lol...But one thing sticks out. a 21 week old baby is viable. There are medical case(s) of 21 week old babies being sustained medically and going on to live.....There is a medical precedence set for it already, it can and has been done.
I will reread the rest of your post tomorrow when I get time, this is just what stood out.
And everyone else stop hijacking my thread....Don't make me send CFR a case of Bacon to hunt you guys down and waste your time with nonsensical debates to the tune of who would win in a fight, smurfs or carebears or some such thing....LOL
 
cranberry

cranberry

Active Member
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/2724249
Cranberry it is late and I just got off work soI am not totally processing things as well as usual...lol...But one thing sticks out. a 21 week old baby is viable. There are medical case(s) of 21 week old babies being sustained medically and going on to live.....There is a medical precedence set for it already, it can and has been done.
Go look out how many times that happened and what the final outcomes are.... we are not there yet at my hospital or in this area. We are not there yet in technology for it to be the standard. We always hear about these infamous 21 week survivals... we have yet to see one. We stop at 23. And I bet any younder babies were singletons. Twins don't fair so well.
 
darthtang aw

darthtang aw

Active Member
Originally Posted by Cranberry
http:///forum/post/2724260
we have yet to see one.

I would be willing to bet you have never seen a gun shot to the head victim survive and lead a normal life afterwards either....but I bet your hospital still treats these patients up until the time of death.
And if your hospital does not work on babies under 23 weeks how would you ever see a 21 week old baby live? Of course you wouldn't ever see it...because you guys don't do it.
 
cranberry

cranberry

Active Member
I'm not saying there isn't a 21 weeker out there... we've all heard of the baby in Miami a few years back. Our way of proceeding is this.... we we try out best with one age set and then we we have success there we try the next lower age set. Why try on the 21s when we've had zero success rate with 22.
 
cranberry

cranberry

Active Member
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/2724263
I would be willing to bet you have never seen a gun shot to the head victim survive and lead a normal life afterwards either....but I bet your hospital still treats these patients up until the time of death.
Two different worlds but I see where you are trying to go with it. One of the biggest differences for me is the amount of pain involved. We medicate adults so good when then are in an ICU. When I worked the PICU my patients didn't move until their tubes were ready to come off. Preemies don't get the luxury of such good pain management. We can't keep their blood pressures up enough to knock them out really good. So all those procedures we do to them... they feel every bit of it. Aren't you glad you're an adult and will have the luxury of being knocked out before you ever had to go through what they go through if you ever became sick?
 
darthtang aw

darthtang aw

Active Member
I understand a bit more now than I did, and it all comes down to hospital procedure which may differ from place to place as well....I still feel something should be done medically up until the time of death and the law would have supported that, success may have been very low, but I see no valid reason not to try especially to vote against trying. From a hospital standpoint I can maybe see it as it is still a business...and saving the life of a premi that may not have any viable parents and way to recoup the cost of the procedure, however with a law in place the state or fed would have to pick up the incurred cost.
I understand why hospitals might not do it, but I don't understand why Obama would vote against treating a premature baby........even if the original intent was an abortion, the baby was born and has gone past the state of abortion....For a guy that wants to give every person in the U.S. healthcare and then deny the infant that needs a formn of healthcare seems very hypocritical to me. That is my main point. What good is suppoorting universal heathcare if you exclude a portion of the population, based off of viability.....or odds..
 
aquaknight

aquaknight

Active Member
Sorry if I'm cutting in here or this has already been covered, but I just saw Obama's commercial. And my question is, who the heck is this guy? Who does he think he is telling people "what to do?" The commercial where the engineer gal is working something, and he says they can switch to solar power, or the contractors can instead solar panels instead of building homes correctly, or forcing hybrids cars on us, instead of producing quality cars?
I really thought it was up to the "economy" to decide what "we" wanted, and not some elected official? If people really wanted solar panels hanging off their roofs, they would have already hired contractors to install them. Or if the general mass really wanted some backwards "hydrogen" (which BTW, is formed from fossil fuels, so we're back at square one) or hybrids, we'd be buying them. I don't understand the point of all these recent/proposed EPA/CAFE acts which will be more or less dictating what cars we drive.
 
cranberry

cranberry

Active Member
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/2724275
I understand a bit more now than I did, and it all comes down to hospital procedure which may differ from place to place as well....I still feel something should be done medically up until the time of death and the law would have supported that, success may have been very low, but I see no valid reason not to try
That's because you have no idea what goes on behind those closed doors. It all sounds pretty on paper.
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/2724275
What good is suppoorting universal heathcare if you exclude a portion of the population, based off of viability.....or odds..
What!! Are you serious? I thought that was Hiliary's gig?
 
squidward

squidward

Member
Originally Posted by hlcroghan
http:///forum/post/2723529
Cranberry you are quite correct. This is obviously a popular subject...lol
To give my answer one last time. I agreed with defending ourselves. Sadaam is out of power. The government there is set in place. They are succeeding. We are DONE with what we went there for. We DO NOT belong there any more.
And guess what?? To give some insider information that NO ONE on this site is privy to. I knew the Marine that was in the squad that killed Osama Bin Laden. Yup, he is dead. And guess when that happened? 2002. I spoke to him personally. Now do you believe that we should still be there? Bush is a liar and anyone could do a better, more ethical job. No matter how many babies die because they are not considered viable, it will never compare to the loss of life of our troops that are involved in a war created to make money for the government.
Please don't tell me this is conspiracy theory either. I know it to be a fact.
Deep stuff there. I believe you. I have no reason to believe the government.
Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/2723531
Either way it is a mute point, the last major faction fighting in Iraq basically surrendered last month, and the us is constructing a victorious withdraw as we speak.
lol after Obama's idea! Even Iraqi's main man agreed with Obama.
Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/2723661
B/C we beat them? Then rebuilt them
What kind of stupid answer is this?! So we beat S. Korea also?
 
stdreb27

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by Squidward
http:///forum/post/2724305
lol after Obama's idea! Even Iraqi's main man agreed with Obama.
There is NO POSSIBLE WAY intellectually that you could swallow the Obama party line that the US has changed its Iraq policy to fit Obama's current view on Iraq. He has been all over the map on this, pull em out for sure, well maybe not, we'll see. Now pull em out for sure.
Meanwhile Bush has been saying the EXACT SAME THING for the last 6 years, when they are ready to take care of themselves then we'll leave.
But because Obama got olomert to say yeah, at that point of time we'll probably be ready, now all of a sudden, Bush policy has changed, and obama has been right all along???

It is possibly one of the more tupe ideas being proposed during this election.
 
cranberry

cranberry

Active Member
Man, weird things come out of other countries sometimes. Did anyone every see that monster of a baby from Siberia, I believe.... the 17 pounder?
That little one sounds about 23-24 weeks.... they can be amazing little guys. I'm not knocking saving the preemies, guys. I happen to like them an awful lot so that I spend half of my awake life looking after them and am surrounded by pictures of babies with great stories. But speaking for my hospital and those in my area this is where we are at. We are touching the 22 weekers every now and then... couple times a year maybe. We are definately wading in the 23 weekers and haven't done great with those. Now, there are some questionable 24 weekers in that their eyelids were fused an awful long time.... so thinking they could have been 23 weks going on 24. Those have made it. We are thumbs up on the 24 weekers.... well, as good as we are gonna get for now until things like infections are mastered. But typically, if we can keep them clean their bodies can do the job.
And it all depends on why the mom is in preterm labour. There are 3-25 weekers on the board right now and I can say that ones outcome is going to be a whole thought worse than the others.
What were talking about again? Oh sorry! This was a man's poltical debate.... and I think oil. I just got off work and I'm rambling.... lost a baby last night.
 
rylan1

rylan1

Active Member
Originally Posted by Cranberry
http:///forum/post/2723681
I must have missed this post earlier. A little review of the oath is in order. Nowhere does it say what you said. Also the oath is not standardized per se, and has been adapted overtime to try and keep up a little bit with the times. Not all schools even use them.... but most do.
........ remember, a lot of abortions occur at clinics... what do you think a clinic can do with a preemie what my hospital cannot. And I'm not from some backwards town... it's a level III NICU in L.A. Ship them off to the nearest hospital? The wouldn't survive the ride.
Your last comment was going to be my point... that most of these procedures happen in clinics... to have even a slight chance at survival for a preemie you have to be in a top level "regional" hospital.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top