<strong>A c-section is a major surgery involving cutting open the woman. I'm sure there are other ways to deal with the situation. They should use the safest and most well-accepted medical method available to them, unconstrained by politicians. Anyway I've heard that most physicians believe there are other methods and that they could live with a ban. But in a case like I mentioned (the baby cannot live and the mother is in danger), who cares how they do it?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I agree that a C-section is a major surgery. But it is a far cry from deliberately murdering a child about to be born. If you take a life it is murder, that child is alive until the doctor uses his scissors to cut the spinal cord, create a hole and then uses a vacuum to suck out the childs brain causing its skull to collapse in on itself. How could you call that anything but murder? It makes me sick just thinking about it. A C-section is not a death sentence and they have made huge leaps in making it so that you can even have a child normally after having one. PBA is a death sentence for the child. There is no second chances. And how do you know that the baby will never live. Is the mortality rate 100%, is there no procedure that can be done to lengthen if not save the life of the child?
Oh, and I still have not recieved an answer for how often said malady occurs.
I agree that a C-section is a major surgery. But it is a far cry from deliberately murdering a child about to be born. If you take a life it is murder, that child is alive until the doctor uses his scissors to cut the spinal cord, create a hole and then uses a vacuum to suck out the childs brain causing its skull to collapse in on itself. How could you call that anything but murder? It makes me sick just thinking about it. A C-section is not a death sentence and they have made huge leaps in making it so that you can even have a child normally after having one. PBA is a death sentence for the child. There is no second chances. And how do you know that the baby will never live. Is the mortality rate 100%, is there no procedure that can be done to lengthen if not save the life of the child?
Oh, and I still have not recieved an answer for how often said malady occurs.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Like it or not, a C section is still a major operation. The mother's health takes precedent. It's as simple as that.
when you guys go into the medical field, especially OB/GYN and genetics, you can come and talk to me about all this...do you know why we do late term abortions?? it is ALWAYS due to extreme fetal abnormalities and/or extreme maternal threat...it is not because of Choice or Desire, it is because of NEED...the baby with a head two to three times normal, with no to little brain matter, just fluid, is not a viable child...and that head will not pass through the birth canal...oh dang, why do i come to appleoutsider....please bring back FSC so i don't put myself through this...i won't change your mind, you won't change mine...so these are senseless circle jerks...i mostly work with children with heart disease now, but i enjoy ob imaging so much that i go 2 to 3 time a month just to do ob ultrasound...it is a wonderful thing in medicene...most of the people are there because they want to be and are happy and we have a fun time looking at the kid (or kids) inside them...i make jokes about the baby's big nose or ask if they are from roswell because that baby looks like an alien...and we have fun (at least most of the time...we do get miscarriages and fetal demises as God seems quite happy to end pregnancies at just about anytime...1st, 2nd and 3rd trimester)...i look at fetuses inside moms all the time and i am still horribly pro choice....just like Bush says he is pro life yet is horribly pro the death penaly and wants to bomb baghdad...
being male and fairly well off financially, ending abortion won't hurt me...i fight for the people with less than me, that are not as strong nor as well off as i am....if abortion is illegal it won't stop abortions from happening...women will just maim themselves...nice...and it won't affect me because if one of my daughters came up to me and said, "dad, i'm sorry, i got pregnant", there would be tears and long conversations...but what it would come down to is i would let her decide...if she said "i want to have this child", i would do everything i could to help her...if she said, "Dad, i'm only 14, i can't handle this" we would talk some more and then, if abortion was illegal here, we would take a week vacation to France or Mexico or Canada or wherever we needed to go...so the wealthy do ok, the poor use coat hangers...g
if you really want abortions to end, you don't outlaw it...that will work just about as well as outlawing alcohol...it doesn't stop it, it just makes criminals of the people that will continue to do it...what you need to do is three things:
1. Get Universal Health Care for pregnant women and children up to the age of 21.
2. Teach sex education to all children...sure talk about abstinence...hell, stress it strongly as the best option...but still talk of condoms and birth control...and offer condoms free at schools and make birth control free (many insurance companies don't cover birth control but will pay of invitro fertialzation)...abstinence is great and i hope my kids follow it...but in our community we are about half catholic and half hippies that turned kinda yuppie (yes it is a strange community of about 6000 people)...in the 7 years i have lived here not one kid from the hipyuppies has gotten pregnant...the parents teach about sex and condoms and birth control and such...in the catholic side there are quite a few kids that are pregnant and they get yelled at by the parents and kicked out of the catholic school because you can't be pregnant there....which brings me to....
3. advertize and put out commercials showing pregnant woman as heros...still teach that having a child will make it harder to go to college or get a good job and this and that so not every 15 year wants to get pregnant....but still we have to find a way to erase the "shame" of pregnancy for these kids...we tell them in words and in actions that it is horrible that they are pregnant, but don't get an abortion or anything like that...."oh, your pregnant? then you can no longer go to this school." or, "your pregnant? what a slut"....teach your children, talk to your children, love your children, make sure that if your children are having sex that they are safe and protected and then abortion will dwindle down to nothing (except for rape an incest...but that is another kettle of fish)...g
[quote]if you really want abortions to end, you don't outlaw it...that will work just about as well as outlawing alcohol...it doesn't stop it, it just makes criminals of the people that will continue to do it...what you need to do is three things:
1...
2...
3...
<hr></blockquote>
i completely agree with your three points. i've always thought that educating kids about sex is the most important factor is cutting down on abortions. the other ideas would help as well.
however, at the beginning where you say that making abortion illegal won't stop abortions, that's not really the point.
murder is illegal, people get killed every day. in my mind, it has nothing to do with criminalizing young women (or older women for that matter). rather, it's about protecting the rights of unborn children, that's it. making abortion illegal won't stop it, i agree, but it works to protect the rights of unborn children.
making abortion illegal by itself would likely do more harm than good IMO. unless it's also coupled with extensive education and resocialization regarding pregnancy it would be harmful to both mother and child, that's not what i'm hoping for.
[quote] i ask about the cut off point becuase it seems that you're trying to set an arbitrary date for when a baby becomes a person. that's crap for someone so concerned with human rights. <hr></blockquote>
we don't even try to "save" a baby if mom goes into labor and we can't stop it and the baby is born before 23 weeks gestation...we can "save" about 20% of 24 week old babies...though we are getting better every year...as medicene gets better and better that age may come down some, but there are major limitations (lung development and maturity comes very very late)....g
we don't even try to "save" a baby if mom goes into labor and we can't stop it and the baby is born before 23 weeks gestation...we can "save" about 20% of 24 week old babies...though we are getting better every year...as medicene gets better and better that age may come down some, but there are major limitations (lung development and maturity comes very very late)....g</strong><hr></blockquote>
So, in your expert opinion, would you believe that the 20th or 21st week would be a proper cutoff point?
[quote]we don't even try to "save" a baby if mom goes into labor and we can't stop it and the baby is born before 23 weeks gestation...we can "save" about 20% of 24 week old babies...though we are getting better every year...as medicene gets better and better that age may come down some, but there are major limitations (lung development and maturity comes very very late)<hr></blockquote>
this is exactly what i mean though. 20 years ago, how young could a baby be and still survive? 7 months old, 8 months? now you've got a one in five chance of making it at 6 months.
that number will keep getting pushed back. if and when human cloning gets more science behind it, i fully believe they'll be able to keep a baby alive from conception to 9 months, entirely artifically.
what would be the take then on when the baby should be saved?
i just worry that as techonology gets better, the earliest survival date for a fetus/child will be pushed back further and futher, until we'll be able to raise them from conception artifically.
at that point, how do you decide which is a child and which is a fetus? i know we don't have the technology now, but does that mean that these aren't children now, only because we don't have the technology to keep them alive outside the womb?
(now i know BRussle's take on this, which is interesting, but harsh. what's yours?)
well, if we ever get to the point were we can "suck" a 6 or 7 week fetus out a woman's cervix and put it in a tube and "grow" that child, and there is somebody who wants to raise that child, i don't think anybody would want an abortion....woman don't have abortions for fun or for kicks or that they get a high or are addicted to abortion....
but it comes back to education...if we properly educate our kids on sex and pregnancy and their bodies then, not only would there be less people wanting/needing abortions, we could also push down the gestational age for abortion....but too many kids don't know they are pregnant, don't know why they have periods nor why their periods stopped and such...if we were properly educating our kids we could limit abortion to the first 8 weeks...make it 12 weeks as some kids, if not pressured by a short decision time and they have time to think and find that their parents really don't hate them, may decide to keep the pregnancy...and i do think that woman are responsible to know their own bodies...
if we had universal health care for kids to age 21 then any sexually active woman could get a pregnancy tests early and then decide earlier...what is destressing is that most of the people against abortion are also against sex education....
so i challege you...you find a way to take a pregnancy from a woman's womb and grow it outside a womb and i promise to help you end abortion....
Like it or not, a C section is still a major operation. The mother's health takes precedent. It's as simple as that.</strong><hr></blockquote>
When dealing with human life, it is never simple. And if you think it is then it appears that life has become cheap to you.
Your opinion of life is clear, you have made it so. Peope have the right to kill themselves if they want to, they have the right to kill their unborn children, the have a right to kill partially born children, and they should have the right to harvest stem cells from both unborn and born children if they can bu used to save many other lives by doing so. Your opinion has been stated, and I disagree strongly. However your post did not answer my questions, any of them.
Does anyone know the answers or is it unimportant to all of you?
[quote]Hydrocephalus is believed to occur in about 2 out of 1,000 births.
How Is Hydrocephalus Treated?
There is no known way to prevent or cure hydrocephalus. The most effective treatment is surgical insertion of a shunt. Learn more about shunts. Endoscopic third ventriculostomy (ETV) is growing in popularity as an alternative treatment method for hydrocephalus. Learn more about third ventriculostomy.<hr></blockquote>
[quote] Treatment by shunting the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) to another area of the body, generally allows patients to lead full and active lives. There are different kinds and models of shunting systems. Although, shunts were a major medical breakthrough, there are problems that still remain unsolved in the treatment of hydrocephalus, such as shunt obstruction and infection.
An overwhelming majority of newborns with hydrocephalus will have a normal life span and normal or even superior intelligence. In addition, they will enjoy normal activities and be useful members of society. However, there are complications associated with hydrocephalus with learning disabilities being one of the most prevalent. <hr></blockquote>
there are many varied degrees of hydrocephalus...the worst case is 95% fluid and about 5% brain....these can not be treated by shunting and are not curable....the brain never grew because the fluid took its place...in 15 years i have know of 2 "partial birth" abortions...outlawing it will not stop abortion, it will merely increase the risk to womens lives that are already going through hell...do you think these women want these late term abortions?? these people usually want to have a child and are forced to have a late term abortion because they have a horribly abnormal fetus growing inside them...would you like me to add photos here?? g
ps...we shunt babies all the time...it is a great procedure (with risks of infection, bleed and such of course) but is useless in the worse cases...g
</strong><hr></blockquote>Do you think in those cases where they can save the child, the parents and doctors WANT to do this just for the fun of it? I don't understand what you're saying. I've said that this is performed when the baby cannot live and the mother's life is in danger, and this is the best alternative. Obviously that's not always the case - but sometimes it may be.
In the end, I think medicine should make the decision about what's best practice, not politicians. Apparently even the AMA has said they wouldn't mind if it was banned (although I think they may support the "Clinton version" where there is an exception for the life/severe health risk to the mother - correct me if I'm wrong). Then they should put out recommendations to physicians about the current state of best practice. It shouldn't be banned just because non-medical people are grossed out by it, because there MAY be cases where gross out procedures could be the best alternative.
Electroconvulsive therapy is a good example. It seems barbaric, especially if you've watched One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. You're torturing people, right? Giving them electric shock is medieval. Well, the reality is, it works. It cures severe depression in the majority of cases where drugs have not worked. Should politicians get involved and say "you can't do that" because it seems so bad to outsiders, despite what the research says? (There actually is a group calling for legislation banning ECT.)
My point is that medical research should determine the best alternatives, and physicians shouldn't have to face prison for performing a procedure that may be in their patient's best interest, even if it is extremely unlikely that it will ever be necessary.
I agree that a C-section is a major surgery. But it is a far cry from deliberately murdering a child about to be born. If you take a life it is murder, that child is alive until the doctor uses his scissors to cut the spinal cord, create a hole and then uses a vacuum to suck out the childs brain causing its skull to collapse in on itself. How could you call that anything but murder? It makes me sick just thinking about it. A C-section is not a death sentence and they have made huge leaps in making it so that you can even have a child normally after having one. PBA is a death sentence for the child. There is no second chances. And how do you know that the baby will never live. Is the mortality rate 100%, is there no procedure that can be done to lengthen if not save the life of the child?
Oh, and I still have not recieved an answer for how often said malady occurs.</strong><hr></blockquote>you don't understand, many times the child is severely malformed and will immediately (or close to it) die after birth. Trisome 13, or 18, hormone problems, or etc, complete malformation of the head often just a big hole where the face is or some such, they are as good as dead already and have virtually no brain at all . . . and, if you know of anybody or you yourself have had this happen then the amount of similar cases come out of the woodwork and many people who you would have never expected have had to terminate this kind of pregnancy, perhaps relatives of yours . . in fact, I would bet on it . . maybe even your mother?!
. . . go full term and suffer the possibility of accidents during birth just to give birth to a quivering gangliated piece of meat . . . no thank you. It happened to a friend of mine twice, first time it was allready dead the second time she had to terminate after 4.5 months . . . believe me this is no light matter . . it devestates a person more than you can imagine
luckily said friend recently had a very healthy and beautiful daughter
PS, there were other couples going through the same procedure and priests were present . . . so even they know of the necessity of these kind of terminations
Try and be somewhat honest. I mean, do ALL cases get aborted? No, it's the EXTREME cases. Why not acknowledge that fact?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I was asking for information on these cases and nobody was replying. They were simply making assertion that his was one case where PBA is an acceptable alternative. I kept asking for stats and information and heard only a sucking sound that was the vacuum of information. I filled it with accurate information and now I am finally getting some facts. Thank you. Chill out everyone.
Definately not something one wants to deal with day in and day out if they have a choice. If you see this every day then you have my sympathy for what it is worth. Any idea's on the cause? 2 in every 1000 seems high for something that I have only just heard of. Why is it not better known?
(I am not arguing against the statistics, I am asking an honest question.)
<strong>there are many varied degrees of hydrocephalus...the worst case is 95% fluid and about 5% brain....these can not be treated by shunting and are not curable....the brain never grew because the fluid took its place...
<snip>
ps...we shunt babies all the time...it is a great procedure (with risks of infection, bleed and such of course) but is useless in the worse cases...g</strong><hr></blockquote>
Another question that is slightly off topic, with this condition (it does not sound like it is a disease right now) is it possible for doctors to relieve the fluid in utero and for the childs brain to grow in the space that is left? Genuinely curious, has nothing to do with the PBA argument at all.
mild hydro usually doesn't need shunting, moderate usually will need shunting, but often can wait till after birth...we have shunted severe hydro inutero, but it depends on the cause, and it is risky as the uterus hates to be invaded like that and can go into labor and there is a high risk of infection...and fetuses can't fight infections in the womb)...most times hydro is caused by a blockage to the CSF and we shunt the fluid from the head to the abdomen or superior vena cava or even the gallbladder as a last resort...but sometimes the fluid is there because the brain is put together wrong....shunting won't make the brain right or fix it...
it is very sad here somedays...the bright side is most babies are born healthy and normal (you get a messed up vision of that sometimes here...you think every kid must be messed up inside somehow or another) and i get to play with kids everyday...i get to help the ones i can and i cry with the parents of the ones i can't...
thank you for your responses NoahJ...i know this is a heated subject and i don't want to get people all upset about it...maybe when i was younger and full of piss and vinegar (mostly piss), now i am older and more mellow....
of those 2 out of a thousand....most are mild hydro and the children live with that with observation and care and love and often won't need surgery (you may even know a kid with mild hydro and not know it)...it is a smaller percent that are severe cases...and then many of the babies that are really horrid are not true hydro but holoprosencephally were there is all fluid and just a touch of abnormal brain matter...i could send you to some other sites, but my non-medical friends all get grossed out and don't talk to me for days when i show them the really sad stuff that grows from time to time in pregnant women who are just hoping and praying for a healthy baby to love (things with medical names like Acardiac Monster and such)....g
Comments
<strong>A c-section is a major surgery involving cutting open the woman. I'm sure there are other ways to deal with the situation. They should use the safest and most well-accepted medical method available to them, unconstrained by politicians. Anyway I've heard that most physicians believe there are other methods and that they could live with a ban. But in a case like I mentioned (the baby cannot live and the mother is in danger), who cares how they do it?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I agree that a C-section is a major surgery. But it is a far cry from deliberately murdering a child about to be born. If you take a life it is murder, that child is alive until the doctor uses his scissors to cut the spinal cord, create a hole and then uses a vacuum to suck out the childs brain causing its skull to collapse in on itself. How could you call that anything but murder? It makes me sick just thinking about it. A C-section is not a death sentence and they have made huge leaps in making it so that you can even have a child normally after having one. PBA is a death sentence for the child. There is no second chances. And how do you know that the baby will never live. Is the mortality rate 100%, is there no procedure that can be done to lengthen if not save the life of the child?
Oh, and I still have not recieved an answer for how often said malady occurs.
<strong>
I agree that a C-section is a major surgery. But it is a far cry from deliberately murdering a child about to be born. If you take a life it is murder, that child is alive until the doctor uses his scissors to cut the spinal cord, create a hole and then uses a vacuum to suck out the childs brain causing its skull to collapse in on itself. How could you call that anything but murder? It makes me sick just thinking about it. A C-section is not a death sentence and they have made huge leaps in making it so that you can even have a child normally after having one. PBA is a death sentence for the child. There is no second chances. And how do you know that the baby will never live. Is the mortality rate 100%, is there no procedure that can be done to lengthen if not save the life of the child?
Oh, and I still have not recieved an answer for how often said malady occurs.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Like it or not, a C section is still a major operation. The mother's health takes precedent. It's as simple as that.
being male and fairly well off financially, ending abortion won't hurt me...i fight for the people with less than me, that are not as strong nor as well off as i am....if abortion is illegal it won't stop abortions from happening...women will just maim themselves...nice...and it won't affect me because if one of my daughters came up to me and said, "dad, i'm sorry, i got pregnant", there would be tears and long conversations...but what it would come down to is i would let her decide...if she said "i want to have this child", i would do everything i could to help her...if she said, "Dad, i'm only 14, i can't handle this" we would talk some more and then, if abortion was illegal here, we would take a week vacation to France or Mexico or Canada or wherever we needed to go...so the wealthy do ok, the poor use coat hangers...g
if you really want abortions to end, you don't outlaw it...that will work just about as well as outlawing alcohol...it doesn't stop it, it just makes criminals of the people that will continue to do it...what you need to do is three things:
1. Get Universal Health Care for pregnant women and children up to the age of 21.
2. Teach sex education to all children...sure talk about abstinence...hell, stress it strongly as the best option...but still talk of condoms and birth control...and offer condoms free at schools and make birth control free (many insurance companies don't cover birth control but will pay of invitro fertialzation)...abstinence is great and i hope my kids follow it...but in our community we are about half catholic and half hippies that turned kinda yuppie (yes it is a strange community of about 6000 people)...in the 7 years i have lived here not one kid from the hipyuppies has gotten pregnant...the parents teach about sex and condoms and birth control and such...in the catholic side there are quite a few kids that are pregnant and they get yelled at by the parents and kicked out of the catholic school because you can't be pregnant there....which brings me to....
3. advertize and put out commercials showing pregnant woman as heros...still teach that having a child will make it harder to go to college or get a good job and this and that so not every 15 year wants to get pregnant....but still we have to find a way to erase the "shame" of pregnancy for these kids...we tell them in words and in actions that it is horrible that they are pregnant, but don't get an abortion or anything like that...."oh, your pregnant? then you can no longer go to this school." or, "your pregnant? what a slut"....teach your children, talk to your children, love your children, make sure that if your children are having sex that they are safe and protected and then abortion will dwindle down to nothing (except for rape an incest...but that is another kettle of fish)...g
[ 01-23-2003: Message edited by: thegelding ]</p>
1...
2...
3...
<hr></blockquote>
i completely agree with your three points. i've always thought that educating kids about sex is the most important factor is cutting down on abortions. the other ideas would help as well.
however, at the beginning where you say that making abortion illegal won't stop abortions, that's not really the point.
murder is illegal, people get killed every day. in my mind, it has nothing to do with criminalizing young women (or older women for that matter). rather, it's about protecting the rights of unborn children, that's it. making abortion illegal won't stop it, i agree, but it works to protect the rights of unborn children.
making abortion illegal by itself would likely do more harm than good IMO. unless it's also coupled with extensive education and resocialization regarding pregnancy it would be harmful to both mother and child, that's not what i'm hoping for.
we don't even try to "save" a baby if mom goes into labor and we can't stop it and the baby is born before 23 weeks gestation...we can "save" about 20% of 24 week old babies...though we are getting better every year...as medicene gets better and better that age may come down some, but there are major limitations (lung development and maturity comes very very late)....g
<strong>
we don't even try to "save" a baby if mom goes into labor and we can't stop it and the baby is born before 23 weeks gestation...we can "save" about 20% of 24 week old babies...though we are getting better every year...as medicene gets better and better that age may come down some, but there are major limitations (lung development and maturity comes very very late)....g</strong><hr></blockquote>
So, in your expert opinion, would you believe that the 20th or 21st week would be a proper cutoff point?
[ 01-23-2003: Message edited by: BR ]</p>
this is exactly what i mean though. 20 years ago, how young could a baby be and still survive? 7 months old, 8 months? now you've got a one in five chance of making it at 6 months.
that number will keep getting pushed back. if and when human cloning gets more science behind it, i fully believe they'll be able to keep a baby alive from conception to 9 months, entirely artifically.
what would be the take then on when the baby should be saved?
i just worry that as techonology gets better, the earliest survival date for a fetus/child will be pushed back further and futher, until we'll be able to raise them from conception artifically.
at that point, how do you decide which is a child and which is a fetus? i know we don't have the technology now, but does that mean that these aren't children now, only because we don't have the technology to keep them alive outside the womb?
(now i know BRussle's take on this, which is interesting, but harsh.
but it comes back to education...if we properly educate our kids on sex and pregnancy and their bodies then, not only would there be less people wanting/needing abortions, we could also push down the gestational age for abortion....but too many kids don't know they are pregnant, don't know why they have periods nor why their periods stopped and such...if we were properly educating our kids we could limit abortion to the first 8 weeks...make it 12 weeks as some kids, if not pressured by a short decision time and they have time to think and find that their parents really don't hate them, may decide to keep the pregnancy...and i do think that woman are responsible to know their own bodies...
if we had universal health care for kids to age 21 then any sexually active woman could get a pregnancy tests early and then decide earlier...what is destressing is that most of the people against abortion are also against sex education....
so i challege you...you find a way to take a pregnancy from a woman's womb and grow it outside a womb and i promise to help you end abortion....
the questions are:
what do we do till then??
what do we do for rape and incest??
g
[ 01-23-2003: Message edited by: thegelding ]</p>
<strong>
Like it or not, a C section is still a major operation. The mother's health takes precedent. It's as simple as that.</strong><hr></blockquote>
When dealing with human life, it is never simple. And if you think it is then it appears that life has become cheap to you.
Your opinion of life is clear, you have made it so. Peope have the right to kill themselves if they want to, they have the right to kill their unborn children, the have a right to kill partially born children, and they should have the right to harvest stem cells from both unborn and born children if they can bu used to save many other lives by doing so. Your opinion has been stated, and I disagree strongly. However your post did not answer my questions, any of them.
Does anyone know the answers or is it unimportant to all of you?
[quote]Hydrocephalus is believed to occur in about 2 out of 1,000 births.
How Is Hydrocephalus Treated?
There is no known way to prevent or cure hydrocephalus. The most effective treatment is surgical insertion of a shunt. Learn more about shunts. Endoscopic third ventriculostomy (ETV) is growing in popularity as an alternative treatment method for hydrocephalus. Learn more about third ventriculostomy.<hr></blockquote>
<a href="http://www.hydrocephalus.org/facts/"; target="_blank">And some more information...</a>
[quote] Treatment by shunting the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) to another area of the body, generally allows patients to lead full and active lives. There are different kinds and models of shunting systems. Although, shunts were a major medical breakthrough, there are problems that still remain unsolved in the treatment of hydrocephalus, such as shunt obstruction and infection.
An overwhelming majority of newborns with hydrocephalus will have a normal life span and normal or even superior intelligence. In addition, they will enjoy normal activities and be useful members of society. However, there are complications associated with hydrocephalus with learning disabilities being one of the most prevalent. <hr></blockquote>
No treatements? No hope? Whatever folks.
[edit to add second link]
[ 01-23-2003: Message edited by: NoahJ ]</p>
<strong>
No treatements? No hope? Whatever folks. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Try and be somewhat honest. I mean, do ALL cases get aborted? No, it's the EXTREME cases. Why not acknowledge that fact?
ps...we shunt babies all the time...it is a great procedure (with risks of infection, bleed and such of course) but is useless in the worse cases...g
[ 01-23-2003: Message edited by: thegelding ]</p>
<strong>No treatements? No hope? Whatever folks.
</strong><hr></blockquote>Do you think in those cases where they can save the child, the parents and doctors WANT to do this just for the fun of it? I don't understand what you're saying. I've said that this is performed when the baby cannot live and the mother's life is in danger, and this is the best alternative. Obviously that's not always the case - but sometimes it may be.
In the end, I think medicine should make the decision about what's best practice, not politicians. Apparently even the AMA has said they wouldn't mind if it was banned (although I think they may support the "Clinton version" where there is an exception for the life/severe health risk to the mother - correct me if I'm wrong). Then they should put out recommendations to physicians about the current state of best practice. It shouldn't be banned just because non-medical people are grossed out by it, because there MAY be cases where gross out procedures could be the best alternative.
Electroconvulsive therapy is a good example. It seems barbaric, especially if you've watched One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. You're torturing people, right? Giving them electric shock is medieval. Well, the reality is, it works. It cures severe depression in the majority of cases where drugs have not worked. Should politicians get involved and say "you can't do that" because it seems so bad to outsiders, despite what the research says? (There actually is a group calling for legislation banning ECT.)
My point is that medical research should determine the best alternatives, and physicians shouldn't have to face prison for performing a procedure that may be in their patient's best interest, even if it is extremely unlikely that it will ever be necessary.
<strong>
I agree that a C-section is a major surgery. But it is a far cry from deliberately murdering a child about to be born. If you take a life it is murder, that child is alive until the doctor uses his scissors to cut the spinal cord, create a hole and then uses a vacuum to suck out the childs brain causing its skull to collapse in on itself. How could you call that anything but murder? It makes me sick just thinking about it. A C-section is not a death sentence and they have made huge leaps in making it so that you can even have a child normally after having one. PBA is a death sentence for the child. There is no second chances. And how do you know that the baby will never live. Is the mortality rate 100%, is there no procedure that can be done to lengthen if not save the life of the child?
Oh, and I still have not recieved an answer for how often said malady occurs.</strong><hr></blockquote>you don't understand, many times the child is severely malformed and will immediately (or close to it) die after birth. Trisome 13, or 18, hormone problems, or etc, complete malformation of the head often just a big hole where the face is or some such, they are as good as dead already and have virtually no brain at all . . . and, if you know of anybody or you yourself have had this happen then the amount of similar cases come out of the woodwork and many people who you would have never expected have had to terminate this kind of pregnancy, perhaps relatives of yours . . in fact, I would bet on it . . maybe even your mother?!
. . . go full term and suffer the possibility of accidents during birth just to give birth to a quivering gangliated piece of meat . . . no thank you. It happened to a friend of mine twice, first time it was allready dead the second time she had to terminate after 4.5 months . . . believe me this is no light matter . . it devestates a person more than you can imagine
luckily said friend recently had a very healthy and beautiful daughter
PS, there were other couples going through the same procedure and priests were present . . . so even they know of the necessity of these kind of terminations
(any guesses who this 'friend' is)
<a href="http://www.acr.org/departments/educ/intrain/501-ultrasound.pdf"; target="_blank">fig 2a and 2b</a>...ultrasound of fetal head with almost all fluid (black) and small mantle of brain (grey)...bone is white...g
<strong>
Try and be somewhat honest. I mean, do ALL cases get aborted? No, it's the EXTREME cases. Why not acknowledge that fact?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I was asking for information on these cases and nobody was replying. They were simply making assertion that his was one case where PBA is an acceptable alternative. I kept asking for stats and information and heard only a sucking sound that was the vacuum of information. I filled it with accurate information and now I am finally getting some facts. Thank you. Chill out everyone.
<strong><a href="http://www.akronchildrens.org/neuropathology/CHAPTER_ELEVEN.html"; target="_blank">go at own risk</a> i have worse sites...but this is a good start on what i see inside people everyday...
<a href="http://www.acr.org/departments/educ/intrain/501-ultrasound.pdf"; target="_blank">fig 2a and 2b</a>...ultrasound of fetal head with almost all fluid (black) and small mantle of brain (grey)...bone is white...g</strong><hr></blockquote>
Definately not something one wants to deal with day in and day out if they have a choice. If you see this every day then you have my sympathy for what it is worth. Any idea's on the cause? 2 in every 1000 seems high for something that I have only just heard of. Why is it not better known?
(I am not arguing against the statistics, I am asking an honest question.)
<strong>there are many varied degrees of hydrocephalus...the worst case is 95% fluid and about 5% brain....these can not be treated by shunting and are not curable....the brain never grew because the fluid took its place...
<snip>
ps...we shunt babies all the time...it is a great procedure (with risks of infection, bleed and such of course) but is useless in the worse cases...g</strong><hr></blockquote>
Another question that is slightly off topic, with this condition (it does not sound like it is a disease right now) is it possible for doctors to relieve the fluid in utero and for the childs brain to grow in the space that is left? Genuinely curious, has nothing to do with the PBA argument at all.
it is very sad here somedays...the bright side is most babies are born healthy and normal (you get a messed up vision of that sometimes here...you think every kid must be messed up inside somehow or another) and i get to play with kids everyday...i get to help the ones i can and i cry with the parents of the ones i can't...
thank you for your responses NoahJ...i know this is a heated subject and i don't want to get people all upset about it...maybe when i was younger and full of piss and vinegar (mostly piss), now i am older and more mellow....
of those 2 out of a thousand....most are mild hydro and the children live with that with observation and care and love and often won't need surgery (you may even know a kid with mild hydro and not know it)...it is a smaller percent that are severe cases...and then many of the babies that are really horrid are not true hydro but holoprosencephally were there is all fluid and just a touch of abnormal brain matter...i could send you to some other sites, but my non-medical friends all get grossed out and don't talk to me for days when i show them the really sad stuff that grows from time to time in pregnant women who are just hoping and praying for a healthy baby to love (things with medical names like Acardiac Monster and such)....g
[ 01-23-2003: Message edited by: thegelding ]</p>