BMA annual representative meeting: Aborted babies born alive should receive full care
http://www.100md.com
《英国医生杂志》
The BMA has called for the NHS, the appropriate royal colleges, and the General Medical Council to work together to ensure that babies born alive as a result of a termination receive the same full neonatal care as that available to other babies.
Ms Ib Adedugbe, a medical student, said that the motion was not about the rights and wrongs of abortion, but about the 1% of abortions in the United Kingdom that resulted in live births. These births were similar to premature births, she said, but in premature births everything was done to save the baby even if younger than 24 weeks. A electronic paper in Pediatrics in January, she said, showed that between 1996 and 2000 there was a 66% survival rate for babies at 23 weeks (2004;113(1):e1-6).
"It should not matter how a baby is born," Ms Adedugbe said. "We have a duty to protect the fundamental human rights of a baby once it is considered living." She quoted a case of an aborted baby who had lived unsustained by life support apparatus for three days.
In the United States legislation was already in place saying that appropriate care should be given to aborted babies born alive. In the United Kingdom there was only the guidance from the medical ethics committee that "from birth, all people have the right to expect care and treatment appropriate to their needs." Ms Adedugbe said, "What we need now is a policy that gives a distinctly clear code of practice for our members to follow."
Dr Andrew Thomson, a member of the Junior Doctors Committee, opposed the motion, pointing out that the management of late abortions was difficult for all involved. It was professionally responsible not to support live fetuses below the threshold of viability.
In determining live births it was important to distinguish between physiological movements and signs of life. Movements could be of a reflex nature and not be a sign of life. The implication in the motion was that babies born alive as a result of abortion were not given the appropriate care. This was not the case, Dr Thomson said. If it were, he would like to see details.(BMJ Linda Beecham)
Ms Ib Adedugbe, a medical student, said that the motion was not about the rights and wrongs of abortion, but about the 1% of abortions in the United Kingdom that resulted in live births. These births were similar to premature births, she said, but in premature births everything was done to save the baby even if younger than 24 weeks. A electronic paper in Pediatrics in January, she said, showed that between 1996 and 2000 there was a 66% survival rate for babies at 23 weeks (2004;113(1):e1-6).
"It should not matter how a baby is born," Ms Adedugbe said. "We have a duty to protect the fundamental human rights of a baby once it is considered living." She quoted a case of an aborted baby who had lived unsustained by life support apparatus for three days.
In the United States legislation was already in place saying that appropriate care should be given to aborted babies born alive. In the United Kingdom there was only the guidance from the medical ethics committee that "from birth, all people have the right to expect care and treatment appropriate to their needs." Ms Adedugbe said, "What we need now is a policy that gives a distinctly clear code of practice for our members to follow."
Dr Andrew Thomson, a member of the Junior Doctors Committee, opposed the motion, pointing out that the management of late abortions was difficult for all involved. It was professionally responsible not to support live fetuses below the threshold of viability.
In determining live births it was important to distinguish between physiological movements and signs of life. Movements could be of a reflex nature and not be a sign of life. The implication in the motion was that babies born alive as a result of abortion were not given the appropriate care. This was not the case, Dr Thomson said. If it were, he would like to see details.(BMJ Linda Beecham)