Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed. Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles. The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being wilfully misrepresented as published articles.
Are we striving for perfection in society? Can we judge who should
receive and who should be denied at a premature birth?
Despite knowing the gloomy facts presented by Christie (only 40%
survive NICU and 50% have handicap if born below 25 weeks), how can the
role of judge and advocate be impartial and fair?
The equation presented to neonatal medical and nursing staff,
obstetricians, parents and policy-making Institutions are the facts of an
available but expensive neonatal ITU service with 40% return, time and
effort towards care-giving, ethical decisions of preserving or destroying
life and the worth of allowing handicapped children to pervade our
society, utilising emotions, effort and costs. The question of whether
that handicapped individual is suffering or enjoying life in
imperfection, depends on the attitude of the on-lookers and society.
Policies cannot incorporate individual needs. Choices by parents made
on 50:50 chance will still end in a life-time of suffering, whether
grieving for their child's death or never having that perfect child.
The balance of financial and time costs towards life preservation is
not a dilemma, it is a prejudice of disability within our perfect society.