I didn't give any data! And I have no idea what the Bliss data and graph you refer to is?
But here is an article:
https://healthier.stanfordchildrens.org/en/premature-babies-survival-rate-is-climbing/
Vive La France!
- Thread starter noseall
- Start date
I didn't give any data! And I have no idea what the Bliss data and graph you refer to is?
But here is an article:
https://healthier.stanfordchildrens.org/en/premature-babies-survival-rate-is-climbing/
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 15,782
- Reaction score
- 2,371
- Country
And you still wrongly think an opinion is an approval. Despite being provided with all the legislation.
Nonsense. However I DO know the completion of the sign off process is approval.
You are aware....(snigger)
2.1 Currently, the requirement for two doctors to certify that a woman meets the legal grounds for abortion has the potential to delay treatment. It may be difficult for a woman who is concerned about confidentiality to find two doctors to approve her abortion request. There is no central monitoring of delays to treatment of this type, but recently, Tony Calland, the Medical Ethics Committee Chair of the British Medical Association (BMA) said that "some women waited up to 13 weeks [gestation] to have their abortion approved by two doctors and removing this requirement would reduce such a wait and the associated risks". The requirement for two signatures for solely legal purposes also increases treatment costs by introducing unnecessary bureaucracy.
Stick that in yer pipe, boyo.
Last edited:
- Joined
- 24 Mar 2024
- Messages
- 332
- Reaction score
- 5
- Country
Your article refers to the US.
UK is reliant on NHS funding, in the main.
Your articles also refers to between 22 and 28 weeks, a far cry from your 2-3 weeks earlier than 24 weeks, in terms of gestation periods.
That article is also in marked contrast to the Bliss study.
Here's the study and the graph that I constructed based approximately on figures from the Bliss study.
2.5% of 24 - 28 week old foetus needed neonatal care. A far cry from the 28% of 22 week old foetus claimed in the article presented by you.I will, each time you present incorrect or misleading data or facts.
And each time you misrepresent the law to reflect your own ideology.
Survival Rate of live births, according to stage of pregnancy, approximately, taken from the Bliss website.
Prematurity statistics in the UK | Bliss
View our statistics on the number of babies born premature in the UK and some information about the long term outcomes for these babies.www.bliss.org.uk
View attachment 338168
And that article claimed that 55% of 23 week old foetus survived. At that rate 100% of 24 week old foetus would have survived, which is, I'm sure you'll agree, extremely highly unlikely.
The only possible explanation for such abnormally high survival results, is that the study was conducted in highly regulated environment with an unusually high degree of care available, pre-natal and post-natal. And that the data collected was from a selected group of pregnancies.
2.1 Currently, the requirement for two doctors to certify that a woman meets the legal grounds for abortion has the potential to delay treatment. It may be difficult for a woman who is concerned about confidentiality to find two doctors to approve her abortion request. There is no central monitoring of delays to treatment of this type, but recently, Tony Calland, the Medical Ethics Committee Chair of the British Medical Association (BMA) said that "some women waited up to 13 weeks [gestation] to have their abortion approved by two doctors and removing this requirement would reduce such a wait and the associated risks". The requirement for two signatures for solely legal purposes also increases treatment costs by introducing unnecessary bureaucracy.
4.3 Recent public opinion polls suggest that the public would like to see improved and easier access for early abortion but that the upper limit should be reduced or that later abortions should be subject to greater counselling and stricter approval criteria. The BMA, the RCOG the Nuffield Council on Bioethics have addressed the problems surrounding later abortion.
4.5 In practice, it would seem reasonable to reduce the 24 week upper limit for section 1(1)a C and D abortions to 16 weeks. Abortions could still be approved over 16 weeks under section 1(1)a Ground B where the termination is necessary top prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the women. Agreement to such abortions would follow improved in-depth counselling and a concerted effort to confirm that there is a risk of grave injury. (No limits would be placed on abortions sanctioned under Grounds A and E).
84. The Abortion Act 1967 requires that an abortion under ground A to E is certified by two doctors, who must each sign a Department of Health HSA 1 form to give notification that the abortion has been approved and on what grounds, and an HSA 4 form for information including patient details, the method of abortion and gestation time.
All taken from the 12th report and compiled with help from some of the most distinguished individuals working around UK abortion today. You can find the list if you look toward the report contents.
You are aware, the people that authored the above, know more about abortion procedure than you'll ever know.
Lol.
It looks like there will be a vote that might reduce it to 22 weeks shortly. The main vote concerns the illegal abortion aspect caused by tying it all to rather old legislation and that can and has resulted in a women receiving a prison sentence and the police getting involved after an abortion. This could also be caused by a woman not following the rules when ever that is noticed. The change according to the web can relate to an abortion that turned out to be over 24 weeks.
TBH Other than the prison aspect which sounds rather extreme I am not sure what to make of it and would hope something would be done if a woman deliberately breaks the rules. Say pill use when it should have been done by another method. That is likely to need hospital treatment. It seems the illegal aspect was fixed in Ireland a while ago. I assume northern. So the bill is expected to pass. No idea when.
Prolife groups mention an amendment that may reduce the time to 22weeks if the speaker allows it to be voted on.
MPs launch bid to reduce abortion time-limit from 24 to 22 weeks | CARE
MPs have launched a bid to lower the abortion time limit from 24 weeks to 22 weeks.
care.org.uk
Survival after premature birth is not a dead simple subject. How well figures, It depends on timing.
It effectively is based on the allowed reasons for having an abortion. The most used reason is I want one and I don't want a baby. A legal approval. All sorts of words can be used but fact is not going along with it could turn out to be bad news for both mother and baby. Reason generally will be life plan or economic factors. This of course relates to the most used grounds and that covers a very high proportion of all abortions. All of the other grounds are not used much at all.
If you complained about the words consultation I might agree with you because it might be a distortion of how this is actually done. Some might think via a consultant. I think it's more likely to be information gathered by some one and passed on to one of those.
MBK often reverts to deflection or outright lies (as above) when he is proved wrong.
The UK has extremely good care for premature babies, as good as anywhere in the world.
Here is a more detailed paper from the mid 2000s which shows, across developed countries, the survival age for very premature babies fell by two weeks from the start of the 1990s.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/ar...xt=Extremely Low Birth Weight Infant Survival.
It has since got even better, as you might expect. There is no doubt that, in developed countries, the survival rate for very premature babies is now at least two weeks better than when the 24 week limit was set.
So, bearing in mind that the 24 week limit was based on viability, and that viability is now at least two weeks better than it was in 1990, wouldn't it just be logical to reduce the 24 weeks to 22 weeks?
I can't find much about the possible changes to abortion rules other than it's due to read after Easter. A crap source gives the arguments against the current motion
www.theguardian.com
No luck on gov sites but when something is due to be read I am not sure what I should search for.
Senior Labour figures seeking to water down plans to decriminalise abortion
MPs due to have free vote on proposal but some in party have privately expressed concerns it goes too far
www.theguardian.com
No luck on gov sites but when something is due to be read I am not sure what I should search for.
Possibly, once you weigh up the consequences.
The percentage of extremely premature infants who are spared from various morbidities. The figure represents the cumulative short-term outcome scale at the time of discharge for admitted infants with a gestational age (GA) of 24 to 26 weeks. At the time of hospital discharge, approximately 50% of infants born at 25 weeks GA leave the hospital without any major neurologic disability versus only 20% of infants born at 24 weeks. Figure modified with permission from Vanhaesebrouck P et al. Pediatrics 2004;114:663–675 (34).
One of the more recent studies from your link.
- Joined
- 24 Mar 2024
- Messages
- 332
- Reaction score
- 5
- Country
A) your graph is US based data again. The same arguments apply as the previous data presented, i.e expensive facilities, excessive and expensive prenatal and postnatal care, differences in demographics, selected demographics, etc.
B) your graph correlates weight, not prematurity, with survival.
C) the preamble recognises the 23/24 week gestational period as the cut-off for viability, as 50%. That is still at enormous odds against the recognised viability of survival in UK as 2.5%, for babies between 24 to 28 weeks. Even 28 to 32 week premature babies are considered to have a survival rate of about 5.1%. That's massively different to your US data set.
D) Premature babies have 0% chance of survival without extensive postnatal care. This sort of extensive postnatal care is only within reach of a very small group of people.
E) the increase in survival rate of premature babies is due solely to improvements in postnatal care, not to any evolution of the gestation period.
F) in the UK, funding for various demands on and in the NHS is a carefully balanced process. The UK does not have the luxury of applying increased funding according to the quality and cost of medical insurance.
To weigh up a holistic approach, with the limitations of funding, is it better to spend more now on the improving viability of premature babies that will demand increased funding in their growing stages due to the inherent risk of morbidities, which will obviously impact on the available funding for the future premature babies and other demands? Or is it better to maintain the status quo and accept that 24 weeks is a sensible cut-off time for termination on demand. That is termination on demand, not some obligatory medical procedure, It's at the request of the potential mother, who does not want to be a mother. It's her choice, and no-one else's.
No it isn't. It is a pooled study from developed countries, including the UK.
You seem to have a very bad habit of twisting simple and undisputed information to try to suit your argument. It is pointless and quite boring. Going back a few months, there was another poster who I had to stop engaging with because he kept doing this. He was called Roy Bloom. Unless of course you simply don't understand it, in which case apologies.
The UK has amazing care for premature babies. Every bit as good as in the USA. The techniques are the same in all developed countries, because the medical community share them. This is not an area where the NHS skimps on resources.
The rest of your post is word salad. For instance you wrote this:
Do you really think the viability in the UK is 2.5% between 24 to 28 weeks? It is actually 40% at 24 weeks, rising to 90% at 28 weeks. I don't know how to have a discussion with someone who gets such basic facts like that so wrong.
And none of this really matters. I was really interested in people's views on the principle. So, just to repeat my very simple question. The 24 week limit was based on the viability in 1990. If the viability has improved by two weeks since the 24 week rule was introduced, isn't it just logical to reduce the time limit by two weeks?
Last edited: