IMHO one of the dumbest news stories

[Stan]

Complete story here

Quote:

Resuscitation at birth increases risk of low IQ

Updated Mon. Apr. 20 2009 6:51 PM ET

CTV.ca News Staff

Children who have to be resuscitated at birth appear to be more likely to score poorly on IQ tests, even if they appeared healthy at first, report British researchers.

The findings, published on the website of The Lancet, come from Dr, David Odd of the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit at Southmead Hospital in Bristol, U.K.

The question is this, what would their IQ be if they were NOT resuscitated?

[Dottie]

Going from this study to a conclusion...

So, what does this doctor think should be done with (to) babies who need to be resuscitated [sp.]? Should that not be done? Just let them die?

Do these children become functional members of society? Families with children who are severely disabled usually say that the people who have to care for these children and know them have lives that have been enriched. So yes, there is a purpose for these children, even though they may not actively contribute.

Oh, yes, don't let me forget the most important reason of resuscitating these babies. Jesus loves each and every one of them, far more than any person can.

[Outta Here]

I find this study quite fascinating, actually. I have relatives who have been resuscitated at birth; and I am fairly certain that one of these children may have had a different upbringing had her parents known the cause of her IQ discrepency between her and her siblings. It may have made a world of difference for her and she may not have been forced into things she was not prepared for as she progressed through her life.

I do not agree that it is one of the "dumbest" studies ever perfomed. As a parent, I can see a lot of good coming from such a study; especially if one of my own children were among those resuscitated.

[bonnie]

Going from this study to a conclusion...

So, what does this doctor think should be done with (to) babies who need to be resuscitated [sp.]? Should that not be done? Just let them die?

Do these children become functional members of society? Families with children who are severely disabled usually say that the people who have to care for these children and know them have lives that have been enriched. So yes, there is a purpose for these children, even though they may not actively contribute.

Oh, yes, don't let me forget the most important reason of resuscitating these babies. Jesus loves each and every one of them, far more than any person can.

Babies are left to die that are considered severely disabled. At times a mistake is made and the thought the baby cannot survive outside the womb backfires. A viable baby is born alive. What are you to do. The mother was aborting only a fetus,the DR operating within the law. Then you end up with a living,breathing tiny innocent life.

It is not mandatory by law these babies receive supportive or medical intervention.

These babies have been laid on a table and allowed to simply fade away.

It is now illegal for medical personal to refuse this process as a moral and religious grounds when requested

[GreatLakesGramma]

The question is this, what would their IQ be if they were NOT resuscitated?

The point is not whether or not babies should be resuscitated. It's about knowing the effects and working out a strategy to compensate.

[LynnDel]

Early in my teaching career, I taught at a special center for children with multiple handicaps. Most had IQs below 50, and many were nonverbal and/or had abnormalities due to birth injury, lack of oxygen during birth, cerebral palsy, genetics, or traumatic brain injury. I was amazed to hear the common consensus among those who had worked among these children for years: Though they loved the children and treated them with parental kindness, they universally stated that if they knew that they or their spouse were going to give birth to a severely disabled child, they would choose abortion instead. I can't say that I agree, but it seemed to me that their feelings somehow contrasted with their love of the children.

LD

-------

[LifeHiscost]

Early in my teaching career, I taught at a special center for children with multiple handicaps. Most had IQs below 50, and many were nonverbal and/or had abnormalities due to birth injury, lack of oxygen during birth, cerebral palsy, genetics, or traumatic brain injury. I was amazed to hear the common consensus among those who had worked among these children for years: Though they loved the children and treated them with parental kindness, they universally stated that if they knew that they or their spouse were going to give birth to a severely disabled child, they would choose abortion instead. I can't say that I agree, but it seemed to me that their feelings somehow contrasted with their love of the children.

LD

-------

The different answers to the news article reveals we won't have all the answers until Jesus gives them. If one is willing and able to take responsibility for an impaired child from birth, giving all the love that child will need for their journey in this world, that person should have the greatest input in the final determination of that child's future. IMHO.

"For not one of us lives for himself, and not one dies for himself;

for if we live, we live for the Lord, or if we die, we die for the Lord; therefore whether we live or die, we are the Lord's.

For to this end Christ died and lived again, that He might be Lord both of the dead and of the living.

But you, why do you judge your brother? Or you again, why do you regard your brother with contempt? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God. "Rom 14:7-10 ARV

Regards!