1 million premature babies die each year, report finds

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

CLite

Golden Member
Dec 6, 2005
1,726
7
76
It is a fact that as cures for traits that would previously kill a person are perfected then the spread of these traits rises. Genetic deficiencies (anything from poor-eye-sight to the more severe) are of course rapidly on the rise.

However, it goes agaisnt all morality to claim you need to "purify" the race by letting the "weak" die, because who knows if the next person to cure cancer will have some other random disorder that might of previously killed them. My personal hope is that in the future there will be genetic tinkering to help alleviate the spread of certain deficiencies. Of course this opens an entirely new moral argument of labeling certain genetic traits as "deficiencies".
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,268
126
Aren't people largely trying to make it so the government can provide health care for everyone, no matter if they can afford it or not, whereas people against reform don't want their taxes paying for deadbeats and illegals? Seems like your comparision would put you w/ the social darwinists. It's amazing that the fundies freak about of the government taking control at the idea of health care. Invading foreign countries? Not a problem Wiretapping w/o warrants? Not a problem Kidnapping people and holding them indefinitely (not to mention torturing 100 to death)? Not a problem. Government reforming our broken health care system? @#$% that!

War is temporary, health care is forever. The government has not the resources to keep everyone alive. We need to promote the best, eliminate the weak.

It's our moral obligation.

<note, here be dragons ;) >
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,268
126
Originally posted by: CLite
It is a fact that as cures for traits that would previously kill a person are perfected then the spread of these traits rises. Genetic deficiencies (anything from poor-eye-sight to the more severe) are of course rapidly on the rise.

However, it goes agaisnt all morality to claim you need to "purify" the race by letting the "weak" die, because who knows if the next person to cure cancer will have some other random disorder that might of previously killed them. My personal hope is that in the future there will be genetic tinkering to help alleviate the spread of certain deficiencies. Of course this opens an entirely new moral argument of labeling certain genetic traits as "deficiencies".

But that costs money and resources, which is what the OP so wisely points out.

Purity of Essence = Peace on Earth.
 
Oct 16, 1999
10,490
4
0
I'm not advocating we let certain people with certain afflictions die. I don't think anyone on this side of the argument is. I'm advocating we prioritize resources to areas where more people will live with a better quality of life. People dieing of certain afflictions is an unfortunate side effect. But even more people living with a better quality of life is the benefit. This is what you people are arguing against.
 
Nov 30, 2006
15,456
389
121
I think healthcare should be strictly rationed for those people with inferior political viewpoints. Utopia is near! ;)
 

TheSkinsFan

Golden Member
May 15, 2009
1,141
0
0
Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian
The fact is all the money and resources being spent on lives at death's door would be better spent on others with a much better chance at survival and decent quality of life. Goes for preemies, goes for the extreme elderly. When you have to choose who lives and who dies it really sucks for some, but that's life. And I love how people are acting like these decisions aren't already being made right now. The cold hard truth is they are and they're being made badly.

The government was never supposed to have that power.

Whereas our founders tried to separate government and power, your centralized planning for it is the death knell of their design.

And people were never supposed to live past certain afflictions we can now treat. These decisions have to be made, and are being made, and I'd rather them be made with efficient spending in mind as opposed to being profit driven. Be it by government, some medical regulatory board, or whatever.
My contention is that none of the above have the right to make these types of decisions; and that doing so should be criminalized as a capital offense. (edit: and yes, I certainly recognize the hypocrisy in this statement, but I don't give a flying fuck. I'd rather support one million preemies living with ailments than a single "person" who advocates their murder).

The patient and his/her kin are the only ones who should have the right to decide the fate of the newborns, elderly, or anyone in a vegetative state.

Doctors, insurance companies, and the Government have no fucking business making the decision for them. Period.
 
Oct 16, 1999
10,490
4
0
Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan
Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian
The fact is all the money and resources being spent on lives at death's door would be better spent on others with a much better chance at survival and decent quality of life. Goes for preemies, goes for the extreme elderly. When you have to choose who lives and who dies it really sucks for some, but that's life. And I love how people are acting like these decisions aren't already being made right now. The cold hard truth is they are and they're being made badly.

The government was never supposed to have that power.

Whereas our founders tried to separate government and power, your centralized planning for it is the death knell of their design.

And people were never supposed to live past certain afflictions we can now treat. These decisions have to be made, and are being made, and I'd rather them be made with efficient spending in mind as opposed to being profit driven. Be it by government, some medical regulatory board, or whatever.
My contention is that none of the above have the right to make these types of decisions; and that doing so should be criminalized as a capital offense.

The patient and his/her kin are the only ones who should have the right to decide the fate of the newborns, elderly, or anyone in a vegetative state.

Doctors, insurance companies, and the Government have no fucking business making the decision for them. Period.

As long as patients are competing for limited resources someone has to make that decision. And people are too stupid to make medical decisions themselves. Just ask Haya.
 

TheSkinsFan

Golden Member
May 15, 2009
1,141
0
0
Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian
As long as patients are competing for limited resources someone has to make that decision. And people are too stupid to make medical decisions themselves. Just ask Haya.
It's always nice to know who the Death Panel advocates are around here. :|
 

Corn

Diamond Member
Nov 12, 1999
6,390
29
91
Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
I like your idea. I mean WTF? We're spending money to keep inferior children alive. Oliver Wendell Holmes was right in sterilizing Carrie Buck. It was completely Constitutional to have her imprisoned. It was her tough luck that she was originally locked up because she was raped and the family wanted her keep it quiet. The principle stands.

You know it's not the first time this sort of thing has come up. The visionary Francis Galton predicted that the inferior would outbreed the superior and that's what happened. Right now we have a far far more expensive situation going on. Welfare moms without the sense to stop breeding have more children than those who work. They in turn have more children. There is no end. The parasites will outnumber the hosts and all will suffer.

We need to be outraged like the OP. Darwin points to the way to fix this problem. The workers need to let the slugs fend for themselves, giving them the opportunity to survive or die. If they die, then it's less of a drain on our society. If they survive then they have proved their worth by adopting to our standards. It's as fair as fair can be.

Next we have the supposed insolvable problem of health care. People pretend that eliminating profit will fix things. Even our wise leaders in government who have nothing but our best interests at heart cannot save us, because as the OP and I have said the dregs of the genetic pool will drag us down.

This wrong can be righted. We must realize that Nature would never allow some people to survive. Those with genetic problems can be sterilized, or if they fall below a government determined standard of productivity painlessly euthanized. Why should people be forced to live with a stigma, knowing that they can never meet the standard for survival unless artificially kept alive? Let them die with dignity.

Then there are the elderly and infirm. How do deal with them? It's not that hard really. What we can do is estimate the productivity of an individual and count that to the "plus" column. They are entitled to resources up to that amount. Once they exceed it, they will have a choice. They can be put to sleep, or as a reward for their labor can be sent to a colony with tools and enough resources for them to build houses, grow crops etc. It's a way to culturally relive the nostalgic pioneer days, and it doesn't cost us very much.

Since the OP touched on preemies, let's be frank. The whole abortion argument is a complete nonsensical artifice. A baby is a baby depending on what side of the vaginal exit it's on? How does that matter in the context of long term human welfare?

Every female pregnancy should be inspected. If there are genetic problems, end it. It would save so much suffering in the long run. Eventually we could eliminate birth defects, diabetes, low intelligence and other scourges. Who knows, maybe we could get to the point where we are able to predict who are most mentally adaptable with our Program. Think of the happiness!

The final solution of course is related to this. Realizing that the good of our species and society are paramount, and having done away with this artificial and outdated concept that babies are somehow automatically a good thing, we test children before they enter puberty. If they don't pass muster physically or intellectually, then cull them. It reduces the risk of bad genes being passed on, and the standards can be adjusted to create a sustainable world population. Too many mouths and not enough resources.

How can we reach these lofty goals? Education. The government is after all the creation of our society which exists to serve us. Our best chance for a happy world is for them to educate all children as soon as they are able to understand the importance of our becoming that Great Society long envisioned. Of course many will oppose our Grand Vision, but they too can be helped. We merely move them to re-education camp and use our latest techniques. We can even try out new therapies on these poor misguided miscreants. Glory!

With Government at the helm, and a clear understanding of the Common Good, we can in a few generations eliminate poverty, religion, hunger, suffering, and promote the Race.





Imagine there's no Heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today

Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace

You may say that I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one

Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world

You may say that I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will live as one

Hah, that is fantastic!
 
Oct 16, 1999
10,490
4
0
Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan
Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian
As long as patients are competing for limited resources someone has to make that decision. And people are too stupid to make medical decisions themselves. Just ask Haya.
It's always nice to know who the Death Panel advocates are around here. :|

All these inefficient expenditures are a big reason health care costs so much. Health care costing so much is why so many people don't have it. Not having health insurance is why a lot of people die. So who's really supporting death panels?

And personally, I pay for my own health insurance. I'm healthy, no chronic problems, and my bill is HIGH. Other people's decisions get reflected in my bills and I hate subsidizing waste and stupidity.

And yes I get mad at my neighbors when they waste electricity too.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,268
126
As long as patients are competing for limited resources someone has to make that decision. And people are too stupid to make medical decisions themselves. Just ask Haya.


Indeed. Someone with Vision needs to make these decisions. We need a form of government run only by those with enough foresight to eliminate the emotional, and adhere to the Cause. They can guide others to ensure that the correct measures are taken to best ensure a happy world for all.
 

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
Here's an easy solution. Let the parents or their charitable supporters decide if it's worth the money to keep the baby alive.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,268
126
Originally posted by: Infohawk
Here's an easy solution. Let the parents or their charitable supporters decide if it's worth the money to keep the baby alive.

That would bring down health care premiums. It's a start.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
36,412
10,720
136
Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian
All these inefficient expenditures are a big reason health care costs so much. Health care costing so much is why so many people don't have it. Not having health insurance is why a lot of people die. So who's really supporting death panels?

And personally, I pay for my own health insurance. I'm healthy, no chronic problems, and my bill is HIGH. Other people's decisions get reflected in my bills and I hate subsidizing waste and stupidity.

And yes I get mad at my neighbors when they waste electricity too.

So this simply boils down to killing the competition for health care because you deserve to have instead of them.
 
Oct 16, 1999
10,490
4
0
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian
All these inefficient expenditures are a big reason health care costs so much. Health care costing so much is why so many people don't have it. Not having health insurance is why a lot of people die. So who's really supporting death panels?

And personally, I pay for my own health insurance. I'm healthy, no chronic problems, and my bill is HIGH. Other people's decisions get reflected in my bills and I hate subsidizing waste and stupidity.

And yes I get mad at my neighbors when they waste electricity too.

So this simply boils down to killing the competition for health care because you deserve to have instead of them.

Yes, clearly I'm arguing only us healthy folks should have health care.

I can rant about wasting resources by going to the doc and getting tests and drugs for every little ache and sniffle just as well.
 

Pliablemoose

Lifer
Oct 11, 1999
25,195
0
56
I was a preme, they wouldn't allow my parents to name me for 2 weeks. My mom had rolled a car and broke her back in 3 places.

With ALL DUE RESPECT FUCK THE OP
 

CPA

Elite Member
Nov 19, 2001
30,322
4
0
Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian
The fact is all the money and resources being spent on lives at death's door would be better spent on others with a much better chance at survival and decent quality of life. Goes for preemies, goes for the extreme elderly. When you have to choose who lives and who dies it really sucks for some, but that's life. And I love how people are acting like these decisions aren't already being made right now. The cold hard truth is they are and they're being made badly.

The government was never supposed to have that power.

Whereas our founders tried to separate government and power, your centralized planning for it is the death knell of their design.

And people were never supposed to live past certain afflictions we can now treat. These decisions have to be made, and are being made, and I'd rather them be made with efficient spending in mind as opposed to being profit driven. Be it by government, some medical regulatory board, or whatever.

Efficient spending? By the Government? You have got to be fucking kidding me.
 

CPA

Elite Member
Nov 19, 2001
30,322
4
0
Originally posted by: rudder
The sweet spot for our healthcare money should be on people 15-40 years old. It is between these ages that society has the most invested. Up until and after that point it is more cost effective to not throw too much money at keeping those age groups alive.

So, I should let me 8 year old son, who is currently sitting in Texas Children's Hospital, not receive healthcare because he's not worth enough to invest in? Are you that fucking stupid?

I love how you have become the arbiter of age investment.
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,407
8,595
126
Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian These decisions have to be made, and are being made, and I'd rather them be made with efficient spending in mind as opposed to being profit driven.

:confused:
 

Athena

Golden Member
Apr 9, 2001
1,484
0
0
Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan
Exactly what is it you are suggesting we do, or not do?
well one thing we could do would be to improve prenatal care. Most industrialied countries emphasize support for expectant mothers while in the United States, the focus is on increased use of technology after the baby is born. If we paid more attention to the conditions that contribute to premature birth, we would have fewer infants in neo-natal units.
 

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,168
60
91
Extraordinary means are going to the care of premature children all the time. The thing is, you just do not hear about it. I visited someone at a children's hospital a couple of years ago and there is a ward just full of premature babies. What I saw was that hospitals go out of their way to try to take care of premature babies.

On a side note it appeared a large number of the babies were African American. I have no idea what significance this has on the subject. It could be just a fluke or something.

Since I live near several large hospitals I have to reflect and realize that there are a lot of people that do not live next to a hospital with good natal care facility. I also remember that not all children are wanted and many single mothers are left to care for their children on their own and the mothers can be overwelmed trying to cope with having a baby and trying to work at the same time.

All the spending in the world by the Government will not get rid of poverty and crime. some babies are just going to die. There is a lady I know at work and while she was trying to enduce labor the baby grabbed ahold of the embelical cord and cut off its own supply of blood and oxygen. Somehow the female doctor managed to reach in and free the embelical cord up and while still holding the babies hand, they covered up this lady with a sheet and rushed her into the emergency room and they somehow managed to deliver a health baby.

The point is that having a baby is a very dangerous ordeal and babies die all the time. Many things can go wrong during the birthing process. There is a lot of research being done into the problems of premature births. It is possible that some environmental factors are causing premature birth like malnutrition or drinking too much soda or even something simple like the sweeteners in soda or drinking coffee. I know that High Fructose corn syrup can cause the body to create elevated levels of stress hormones, and also elevate blood pressure. It is most likely a variety of factors or something we have not thought about. I seriously doubt whether the government can solve a problem like this. It is more likely that some medical center will help to identify some of the factors.
 

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,168
60
91
A lack of qualified doctors could also be a problem in some areas.

I went back and read the article it says African Americans are 1.5 times more likely to have preterm babies.

It also states that there are 13 Million preterm babies and out of that number, 1 million or a little more result in death. It did not give the total number of healthy births.

Some of the problems are women are having more children later in life. In other words they try to have babies by using fertility drugs after they reach age 30. This significantly increases a chance of a failed pregnancy.
 
Oct 16, 1999
10,490
4
0
Originally posted by: Athena
Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan
Exactly what is it you are suggesting we do, or not do?
well one thing we could do would be to improve prenatal care. Most industrialied countries emphasize support for expectant mothers while in the United States, the focus is on increased use of technology after the baby is born. If we paid more attention to the conditions that contributet to premature birth, we would have fewer infants in neo-natal units.

That's just crazy talk. No one in the health care industry wants sickness prevention. It would hurt profits.
 

Athena

Golden Member
Apr 9, 2001
1,484
0
0
Originally posted by: piasabird
On a side note it appeared a large number of the babies were African American. I have no idea what significance this has on the subject. It could be just a fluke or something.
No, it's not a fluke, blacks do account for a disproportiantely high number of premature babies in the US. It's another example of the way in which our dysfunctional health care financing system withholds care from the poorer among us and pays big time later.

I seriously doubt whether the government can solve a problem like this. It is more likely that some medical center will help to identify some of the factors.
And yet, other, univrsal healthcare systems have identified factors ... and done something about them. TR Reid has some interesting observations about this in the chapter about prevention in The Healing of America. In most industrialized countries, a positive pregancy result sets off a panolpy of services for expectant mothers. In many countries, co-pays are waived for pregnant mothers (and infants). Others have armies of midwives and home health care visitors who focus on supporting mothers through healthy, full-term pregnancies.

In keepimg with our philosphy of pouring money into critical care, the US has the least organized prenatal programs, and the most investment in neo-natal ICUs.

 

miketheidiot

Lifer
Sep 3, 2004
11,060
1
0
Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian
Originally posted by: Atreus21
Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan
Exactly what is it you are suggesting we do, or not do?

From the OP:

Let nature take it's course.

Personally, I'm tired of the cycle and wasting money, resources that could be put to better use.

Frankly I agree. And I'll flat out state that given limited resources I prioritize an adult life over a newborn life, so let the "baby killer" shouts commence.

agreed. letting something die (note the choice of words before flaming please) that is not aware that it exists really is not an ethical problem.