tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6205556462251851125.post4423266746623267450..comments2024-03-14T01:22:29.342-05:00Comments on The Preemie Experiment: Should the Cost of Saving a Preemie...ThePreemie Experimenthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15882375368535807238noreply@blogger.comBlogger38125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6205556462251851125.post-27284719833031892412013-10-16T19:25:22.606-05:002013-10-16T19:25:22.606-05:00Everyone here who thinks that taxpayers should bea...Everyone here who thinks that taxpayers should bear the $1,000,000 hospital costs of micro preemies better be voting Democratic. And believe me, taxpayers do bear the cost because our own insurance premiums go up or hospitals shift the cost to the insured. How many of families would be fighting to save their extreme micro preemies if they actually had to pay the cost and spend the rest of their lives in poverty trying to pay the medical bills? It's easy to talk about the sanctity of life when your own life is not being affected (that is you are not going $1,000,000 in debt.) Why should I, the taxpayer, be asked to pay every time a parent won't accept the reality that without extreme developed world medical technology, a micro preemie should not kept alive at all costs. It's always someone else bearing that cost. All life is not a miracle, or if you really believe it is, you rack up the bills.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6205556462251851125.post-12015265201356155272011-01-29T22:50:47.032-05:002011-01-29T22:50:47.032-05:00How is the "value" of a life determined?...How is the "value" of a life determined? <br /><br />People like to scoff when "death panels" are referenced when talking about national healthcare, yet isn't that exactly what we are talking about? Some committee, scientific formula, etc... determining who should or shouldn't get an opportunity to live? As someone mentioned above, there are a limited number of hearts available. Not everyone that needs one will get one. The same will have to be true of publicly-funded healthcare. It is not a limitless resource. It's naive to believe that everyone will get all the care they need. It simply won't be possible. <br /><br />Is that not a terribly slippery slope, particularly as costs continue to rise? <br /><br />What, exactly, determines a person's "worth"?<br /><br />The circumstances of their conception? Does that mean a child conceived in a marriage bed is "worth" more than one that is not? Is a child conceived from expensive fertility treatments "worth" more than one conceived easily? Of course not. Human worth is not determined by the circumstances of conception.<br /><br />The circumstances of their birth? Is a child born vaginally, with no complications, "worth" more than one born following a complicated delivery requiring a more expensive surgical intervention? Of course not.<br /><br />Is "worth" determined by genetical perfections or imperfections? Is a beautiful cherubic newborn "worth" more than one born with a cleft lip? <br /><br />Is a healthy, full-term baby more "worthy" of medical care than one born not as healthy? <br /><br />Are my son's "worth" more because we pay more in taxes than a less fortunate family? <br /><br />If the answer is "yes", than we are on a slippery slope indeed. <br /><br />Yes, there are very real costs involved with the raising of a preemie. I have a million dollar+ 23 weeker (1lb 2oz at birth) surviving twin that is now 10 years old. Of course these costs should be explained to parents facing a possible preemie outcome.<br /><br />Throughout my older son's 10 years, I have heard many arguments that preemies that early shouldn't be saved because of the drain on our resources (healthcare, education, etc...). <br /><br />I wonder: who determined that the circumstances of their birth determined their "worth"?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6205556462251851125.post-34248204144854097332010-11-24T09:29:54.659-05:002010-11-24T09:29:54.659-05:00I truly hope that insurance company will coverage ...I truly hope that insurance company will coverage the preemie back again. It is my biggest concern lately. Keeping my fingures cross and praying.product liability insurancehttp://www.boltinsurance.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6205556462251851125.post-47532455439983228982010-06-14T09:32:16.460-05:002010-06-14T09:32:16.460-05:00In South Africa, where I live,unfortunately cost d...In South Africa, where I live,unfortunately cost does dictate that. In most public hospitals if your baby is born under 1 kilogramme/ - about 2.2 pounds or 35.2 ounces or is under 28 weeks, the baby will most likely not be ventilated, & given only oxygen, - I've heard that if they survive 24 hours then they will get ventilated. If you are fortunate enough to have medical insurance in South Africa with access to hi tech private hospitals, then chances of survival for a preterm infant, from around 26 weeks regardless of weight in general, would be as good as any other first world hi tech hospital. Sadly in South Africa, the majority of people are unable to afford medical insurance because it is just so expensive and they have to go to public hospitals where care is often not as good or hi tech as the private run hospitals. Not all public hospitals are sub standard in comparisin to private in SA, but most.Rags@40https://www.blogger.com/profile/16722619942140763577noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6205556462251851125.post-34739446094229475232010-01-29T12:49:15.736-05:002010-01-29T12:49:15.736-05:00RE: Pattie's comment: "I also find it iro...RE: Pattie's comment: "I also find it ironic that we are saving 23 week 'babies' when it is still legal to kill them if they are unwanted 'fetuses'. Sort of a cognitive disconnect there..."<br /><br />I was just talking with my mom about this the other night. Our legal system is driven by "precedent," but some precedents were established in the absence of the scientific information that we have today. Breaking a pregnancy into trimesters a la Roe v. Wade is one of those precendents that doesn't clearly match onto a fetus/child's development in some ways. Of course, development is a continuum so one could argue that classifications will always be arbitrary to some extent. But if the decision could be rewritten, I wonder if the third "trimester" or period would be moved to 20 weeks when research suggests that the concept of pain becomes more coordinated with the brain for the fetus/baby.<br /><br />Another irony is how political liberals are quicker to extend the period of abortions (failing, in my opinion, to recognize rights of the fetus/baby) BUT wanting the "system" to provide monetary support for just about anyone once they are born. Then we have the conservative lot who demand that every pregnancy be considered viable, refuse to talk about birth control, and then don't want to provide social services for children born into most unfortunate circumstances. I find the inconsistencies on both sides quite baffling. But a lot of people figure out ways to avoid inconsistencies in their own reasoning (cognitive dissonance at play!).<br /><br /><br />Anyway, I'm really enjoying the dialogue on this thread. Gives me pause in trying to sort out what I believe and where my belief inconsistencies may lie!Kate K.https://www.blogger.com/profile/07158172668549909983noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6205556462251851125.post-11098479662621103962010-01-29T12:32:49.892-05:002010-01-29T12:32:49.892-05:00RE: Pattie, RN's comment: "I also find it...RE: Pattie, RN's comment: "I also find it ironic that we are saving 23 week 'babies' when it is still legal to kill them if they are unwanted 'fetuses'. Sort of a cognitive disconnect there..."<br /><br />I was just talking with my mom about this the other night. Our legal system based on precendent has many benefits. But one problem of it is using precendent when there is newKate K.https://www.blogger.com/profile/07158172668549909983noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6205556462251851125.post-11787625510011003632010-01-25T15:19:02.628-05:002010-01-25T15:19:02.628-05:00I AM A FOSTER PARENT. IN 9 YEARS I HAVE LOVED AND ...I AM A FOSTER PARENT. IN 9 YEARS I HAVE LOVED AND CARED FOR 17 DRUG EXPOSED OR ADDICTED EXTREEME PREEMIES. IN MY OPINION, THERE ARE NORMAL PREEMIES AND DRUG PREEMIES. UNFORTUNATLY THIE STATE OF TEXAS TREATS THEM LIKE TINY NEWBORNS AND I AM OUTRAGED. THEY SEND THEM HOME WITH WHO EVER WILL TAKE THEM. I HAVE ADOTPED ONE PRECIOUS GIRL SHE IS NOW FOUR. THERE ARE NO STAT'S ON THESE BABIES.JUDYnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6205556462251851125.post-73608864387232979002010-01-21T14:52:58.345-05:002010-01-21T14:52:58.345-05:00I had a beautiful baby girl at 26 weeks and she on...I had a beautiful baby girl at 26 weeks and she only weighed 1lbs.13 oz. I agree the cost doesn't end when they leave the NICU. But as far as I am concerned these babies are priceless and they fight to be alive. Life has no monetary measurement. Nothing in this world could replace the joy of seeing my daughter's first toothy smile, seeing her walk for the first time and just the blessing of being a mom.whitewolfhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17109311430355087456noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6205556462251851125.post-78763086815868191112010-01-14T23:33:05.289-05:002010-01-14T23:33:05.289-05:00Dear Pattie and Group,
Our preemie son Edward is ...Dear Pattie and Group,<br /><br />Our preemie son Edward is 33 years old -- he lives at home and my husband and I care for him. <br /><br />He is multiply handicapped --"mild" CP which is, in fact, incapacitating, mild retardation (IQ of 59) --also incapacitating, hydrocephalic, and severely visually impaired -- also autistic. He's had more than 15 operations in his life.<br /><br />He used to be fairly physically healthy except for shunt issues, but all the adhesions from various surgeries over the years(from various neonatal issues) have compromised his lungs and intestines, and more.<br /><br /> He had a heart attack two years ago after developing a cold that quickly became pneumonia. He ended up in the ICU with consults about end-of-life.<br /><br />He is, at this moment, facing something similar -- a vicious chest cold and possible hospitalization. He is tachypnic -- about 40 BPM, his pulse is 90+ BPM. His O2 sats on a pulse oximeter is 93-95 (mine is 98+). He's fairly alert and active at the moment -- after a dose of Nyquil.<br /><br />HIs temp is only 99 to 101, so far (unlike 102-104 last time). We would *greatly* like to avoid the hospital, but will do what needs to be done.<br /><br />I realize this is not the place for giving specific medical info, but I would like to know from any of you who are MDs or RNs -- does he, in your opinion, need to be hospitalized based on the info given above?<br /><br />His breath sounds (as best I can tell) include major wheezing noises at night, but sound fairly clear during the day when he is upright.<br /><br /> I don't know what we will be facing after an MDs appt. tomorrow AM, but would be grateful for your informed opinions, if you feel you can give them.<br />My private email is helen1144@aol.com<br /><br />TIA,<br /><br />HelenHelen Harrisonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6205556462251851125.post-81202381499730860782010-01-14T09:45:08.599-05:002010-01-14T09:45:08.599-05:00Helen, it is because we have seen the costs, and t...Helen, it is because we have seen the costs, and the monetary ones are the least of these! Too many people focus on the tiny preemie in NICU and saving his or her adorable new life, and cannot see 25 years into the future when the infant, now weighing 138 lbs, retains the cognitive and neurological status of an infant, complete with trach, feeding tube, monitors, and bi-monthly trips to the hospital. We love the "Rocky" type success stories, but they are newsworthy only because a micro-preemie adult with no impairments is such an anomoly. If hospitals could adopt and implement a hospice atomosphere, where low lights and skin-to-skin contact while saying "hello and goodbye" to these babies was allowed, nurses and doctors wouldn't be forced to choose between a postpartum hemorrhage or a lifetime caring for a child who was never meant to survive extrauterine life...<br /><br />Pattie, RNAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6205556462251851125.post-52739932751526217222010-01-13T08:21:19.809-05:002010-01-13T08:21:19.809-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.terri w/2https://www.blogger.com/profile/12300679169642744506noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6205556462251851125.post-47724639731895900782010-01-12T01:48:57.029-05:002010-01-12T01:48:57.029-05:00It is sod sad to me that mothers (medically educat...It is sod sad to me that mothers (medically educated) will risk their own lives and go "to the woods" or "to the desert" or to a "cabin in the Alps" in order not to deliver a surviving preemie.<br /><br />I have heard this story more times than I can count from medical professionals from around the world.Helen Harrisonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6205556462251851125.post-52851465326049468932010-01-11T22:06:08.353-05:002010-01-11T22:06:08.353-05:00Interesting subject. I'm a former NICU nurse ...Interesting subject. I'm a former NICU nurse and at one time believed that everything possible should be done for every baby over 24 weeks gestation. Then I started working in home care and after viewing life from the family's perspective, started to feel differently. The cost should be viewed not simply in financial terms, but the overall cost to the family's total resources. That said, I think that very few working in neonatology have a clear view of what the ongoing costs will be to the family.<br />I don't think our society should ever dictate who should and shouldn't have babies . . . but I do think the ultimate decision about resuscitation of a premie should be an informed decision made by the parents themselves.<br /><br />A neonatolgy fellow that I worked with some years ago was having contractions at 26 weeks. She said that if she delivered, she did not want her baby resuscitated. The hospital told her that would not be possible, they would have to do a full resuscitation. She and her husband rented a house in the desert where she planned to deliver away from medical attention.<br /><br />Parent who are at high risk of a very premature delivery should be fully educated about the possible outcomes and be able to make an informed decision about what they want done. If they want everything done, then it should be done; if, however, they choose to let nature take its course, that wish should be respected.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6205556462251851125.post-85485027542478257692010-01-11T13:00:30.602-05:002010-01-11T13:00:30.602-05:00to Jennifer who asked why the private sector (insu...to Jennifer who asked why the private sector (insurance companies) is not asking for single embryo transfers:<br /><br />Very few companies offer fertility treatment coverage at all, and I suspect those that do have some sort of requirements, though I don't know for sure. <br /><br /> However, it is so easy, using lifetime limits and other forms of recision to get rid of those families that ultimately prove to be too expensive, so I doubt that ART limitations of the sort that exists, in , say, the UK is an important part of the insurance companies' calculations. <br /><br />With the insurance companies unable to dump expensive patients curtailed (as under the proposed health care bill), there would be an across the board incentive for everyone to control costs, to prevent easily preventable medical disasters (such as the octomom fiasco) and to make more responsible health care decisions.<br /><br />I think very few families want 8 babies or even 2 to 3 babies all at once, especially when it so often involves prematurity and lifelong disability.<br /><br />And to Pattie, RN, like you, I often hear from neonatologists and NICU nurses (and other medical professionals) about the steps they would take to avoid having a surviving preemie themselves.Helen Harrisonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6205556462251851125.post-16525580819791394822010-01-11T11:04:37.697-05:002010-01-11T11:04:37.697-05:00Very interesting reading. I am an RN and worked a...Very interesting reading. I am an RN and worked about a decade in mother-baby, at a time when 25 weeks was considered the absolute bottom number for viability. I was no longer in the baby making game at the time (my sons were in grade school, both healthy and having weighed over eight lbs at birth) but I do remember discussing this matter with our chief of neonatology, who had a perfectly healthy baby girl at home. She told us nurses one quiet night shift that she and her husband had decided that if she went into labor before 32 weeks, she was going to stay home and deliver, wait for the inevitable, and call EMS afterwards. She had seen too much of what happens to micropreemies.<br /><br />I also find it ironic that we are saving 23 week "babies" when it is still legal to kill them if they are unwanted "fetuses". Sort of a cognitive disconnect there...<br /><br />Finally, I have worked hospice in the subsequent years and feel strongly about heroic and futile measures on adults and YES I have my own living will in place. I think that the fiscal and emotional costs of a full court press on micropreemies is a drain to society and parents or their substitutes, since many preemies here where I live wind up either with 24 hour home care or in a institution. Kangaroo care and oxygen, and let the Universe decide. As been said so often by wiser folks than I:<br /><br />"Just because we CAN doesn't mean we SHOULD."<br /><br />Pattie, RNAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6205556462251851125.post-4964705254168769002010-01-11T08:25:28.390-05:002010-01-11T08:25:28.390-05:00Whatever the cause of a person's infertility, ...Whatever the cause of a person's infertility, it isn't 'cured' or even treated by IVF. Having a baby has no impact on the underlying medical cause, and thus cannot be considered a treatment. Having children or not is a lifestyle choice, not a medical issue. Many infertile people spend money to have them, and huge numbers of fertile people spend money to avoid having them. Both are legitimate desires, and both are the responsibility of the individual to fund (though government-funded contraceptives may be a good idea in some cases).<br /><br />From a financial standpoint, wouldn't it take (on average) twice as many cycles for the average woman to conceive with one embryo as it does with two? Considering the cost of each cycle, and the huge increase in the number of people who would take advantage of it if they didn't have to pay for it, I wouldn't assume that any money would be saved by doing that. A few insurance companies do cover IVF, and to my knowledge, none of them have that rule, though they're the ones that end up paying for the resulting premature babies, as well. It seems to me that if that restriction was profitable, the private sector would have done it by now. Have any studies been done about this?Jennifernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6205556462251851125.post-69384483978764027412010-01-10T21:05:04.517-05:002010-01-10T21:05:04.517-05:00Haven't read all the comments fully yet, but i...Haven't read all the comments fully yet, but it seems that no one, except "anonymous" 5:01 and 5:55, is talking about who "deserves' to have children, or who would be "allowed" to become pregnant. No one else has mentioned determining "eligibility" or "punishments" for "disobeying." <br /><br />I think improving the general health of women, giving them access to honest information about pregnancy risks, reliable birth control, treating infections, treating addictions, treating gum disease (which is associated with preterm birth), improving prenatal and pre-conceptional nutrition, making sure women have folic acid supplements, etc. would make a major difference in the preterm birth rate in the US which is higher than in other industrial countries with universal health care.<br /><br />The issue I *would* like to have mandated is the single embryo only transfer (paid for by insurance) as is done in many countries with universal health care -- with good results. Regulation of the lucrative ART industry in the US is long overdue! <br /><br />Otherwise, I can't help but think that informed, empowered parents, or prospective parents, will generally act in their own best interests if given information and options.Helen Harrisonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6205556462251851125.post-70536516338782983462010-01-10T17:55:54.926-05:002010-01-10T17:55:54.926-05:00I think determining "who" is allowed to ...I think determining "who" is allowed to have a baby is a slippery slope. If we are in favor of saying that women who are at risk of delivering a premature baby should no longer be allowed to have anymore children, how is that any different than saying that 2 hearing impaired or deaf individuals should not have children? What about a couple who has a cognitive disability, but are both leading independent and self sufficient lives. I think if a determination is made that a woman who is at high risk shouldn't have more children, it will only lead to more restrictions. Which essentially is unconstitutional.<br /><br />Furthermore, should someone who is high risk disobey the doctor and become pregnant, what are the ramifications or punishments? Do we force elimination of the pregnancy, do we take the child away from the mother once it is born? There are women who are addicted to drugs and lead incredibly unhealthy livestyles that NEVER have their children taken away from them.<br /><br />Of course these are all worst case scenarios, but as I said earlier, it is a slippery slope determining such things. And it won't just stop with pregnancy. <br /><br />Cost should not be the only factor. As a matter of fact, I don't know that I believe it should even be a considered factor. The cost for saving a 34 weeker can far surpass the cost of a 27 weeker depending on the medical issues the child faces. It could even surpass the cost of a child born full term should that child have a heart defect or intestinal defect that is cured with intensive and ongoing surgeries. But those surgeries have no impact on their contributions to society 30 years down the road.<br /><br />It is frightening to me that some people even think that determining "eligibility" for having children is even a viable option.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6205556462251851125.post-54638080270260498292010-01-10T17:01:19.058-05:002010-01-10T17:01:19.058-05:00I understand what some of you are trying to say, b...I understand what some of you are trying to say, but I have to admit I get pretty nervous when people start talking about who "deserves" to be pregnant and who doesn't. Infertility is a medical condition that deserves treatment, like every other medical condition. We don't blame people for their astronomically expensive diseases, so why do so for cases of prematurity? How many quadruple bipasses are being done every day? Or organ transplants? Or experimental cancer treatments? We don't say, oh you didn't eat a healthy diet, you can't have that angioplasty. In addition, it's important to think carefully about the *causes* of prematurity, and rising numbers of multiples due to IVF is only one of them. Maternal age is a more dubious risk factor. Conditions that commonly lead to premature birth, like preeclampsia, aren't tied to diagnosable risk factors. Do other countries have the same rates of prematurity as we do? What can we do to try to stem this problem? I hope that the solution to this tragic problem is better preventive medicine (ie identifying and dealing with risk factors) rather than bad policies dictating who can get pregnant. I seriously doubt that any country with universal health care (ie every industrialized nation except the US) refuses care to preemies or forbids certain mothers from getting pregnant. If their rates of prematurity are lower, perhaps there's something they're doing better than we are. As someone mentioned earlier, one of the things they do is regulate IVF transfers more carefully - one or two transfers. I know this is controversial in the US ART community, and it's important to keep in mind it's only *one* potential solution, not necessarily the golden ticket solution.<br /><br />For me, I look at the whole health care system and how broken it is in this country, rather than looking at one small part of it (NICU) and worrying about the costs there. If the overall system were less astronomically expensive, it could more easily absorb the costs of critical care.<br /><br />But I also agree with all the commenters who wrote about continuing financial costs of preemies, and how the media and doctors tend to gloss over these issues, to the detriment of parents needing to make critical decisions.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6205556462251851125.post-79494022934428436532010-01-10T14:34:58.395-05:002010-01-10T14:34:58.395-05:00Jennifer,
In some countries in Europe, IVF is cov...Jennifer,<br /><br />In some countries in Europe, IVF is covered by the national health system, but only for single embryo transfers. This greatly decreases the chance for twins in IVF (and thus the probablity of a preemie), and would probably make a big difference in a country as large as the US.<br /><br />--JDAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6205556462251851125.post-88233995637612797372010-01-10T13:18:55.590-05:002010-01-10T13:18:55.590-05:00Thinking about it more, I've realized that whe...Thinking about it more, I've realized that whether a preemie will grow up to pay the 'usual' amount of taxes is irrelevant, because (even excluding medical expenses) they'll still use the same taxpayer-funded services as everyone else - police, fire, schools, etc. Every preemie would have to grow up to pay $1 million or so in ADDITIONAL taxes (compared to the average taxpayer) for it to be worth it from a financial standpoint. I don't know if that's ever happened, but I know it doesn't happen often.<br /><br />In real life, the decision-maker is the one who's footing the bill. Who has the right to determine who's 'fit' to get pregnant? Whoever's financing the consequences, that's who. If the government pays for it, then they have every right to restrict it. That's one of the reasons many people don't like the idea of socialized healthcare.<br /><br />Helen,<br /><br />Why do you think universal health care would decrease that sort of irresponsible behavior? Most people who do it now are paying cash for it. I would hope it wouldn't be covered under universal health care, but if it was, it would make Clomid, Pergonal, and IVF more widely available, and increase the number of people using them.Jennifernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6205556462251851125.post-26710210310871641242010-01-10T09:39:57.318-05:002010-01-10T09:39:57.318-05:00As an aside, in light of the discussion on whether...As an aside, in light of the discussion on whether or not to limit those "at risk" from having children (or more children). .<br /><br />Nadya Suleman was in the news this week - or more specifically, a segment on one of the news programs about the fertility doc who got her pregnant with her 14 children over the years. .apparently he is being investigated for his apparent negligence in the Suleman case and is facing sanctioning. .<br /><br />When Nadya Suleman was asked what she thought about her Dr. being punished she said (and I'm quoting loosely) that she was sad to hear that because who would she go to should she decide to have more children??terri w/2https://www.blogger.com/profile/12300679169642744506noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6205556462251851125.post-129047096124189062010-01-08T14:26:15.684-05:002010-01-08T14:26:15.684-05:00Paula, I want to emphasize that I am totally with ...Paula, I want to emphasize that I am totally with you on this!<br /><br />I hope that, under a more rational system of healthcare, we can encourage responsible family planning decisions across the socio-economic board.Helen Harrisonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6205556462251851125.post-39023903658963032802010-01-08T00:22:24.713-05:002010-01-08T00:22:24.713-05:00Helen - I should have been clearer in my first pos...Helen - I should have been clearer in my first post. The woman to whom I referred with the 4 extremely early preemies was not a drug addict; just an average middle class woman. So, yes, there are two socioeconomic groups referred to in my post. I don't blame just the low-income drug addicted mother for misusing medical resources.<br /><br />PaulaAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6205556462251851125.post-79380269425537363302010-01-07T22:56:05.185-05:002010-01-07T22:56:05.185-05:00To Paula,
I totally agree with you that people at...To Paula,<br /><br />I totally agree with you that people at high risk for repeated prematurity (addicts for example) should be strongly discouraged from pregnancy.<br /><br />But, this would, logically, have to hold true not only for impoverished drug addicts, but also middle-class women who avail themselves of fertility treatment or who wait till late middle age before attempting pregnancy.<br /><br />I have been told by OB/Gyns and Neonatologists (also epidemiologists) that the main cause of the recent increased rate in prematurity is not illicit- drug addicted mothers, but those who are users of such drugs as clomid and pergonal (ovulation enhancers). I would also add docs who implant more then one or two embryos, in IVH, and who make a fortune on giving multiple pregnancies to uninformed couples.<br /><br />I would hope that some sort of universal health care coverage would help rein in such irresponsible high-risk pregnancies.Helen Harrisonnoreply@blogger.com