Right on Ben. There is no life more precious and worth saving then that of a newborn. As someone who knows more than a little bit about your particular case, I can state categorically that the chance for a parent's newborn child to have life outweighs all the risks which are definitely very real and often tragic.
My sister was a preemie, too, so, yeah, probably good for them to do what they can.
Sadly, I think, as you point out in a roundabout way, that doctors have forgotten their oaths. If you'll recall, I posted a couple of times about the movement among doctors to decide not to treat plaintiffs' personal injury lawyers. Deciding to cut a class of people out of your practice, whom you would otherwise treat, is just unethical. I think a lot of doctors have forgotten why they became doctors, or never even knew in the first place. Of course, a lot of lawyers are like that, too. However, there is, at least, a rather strident attempt within the legal profession to regulate ethical conduct and professionalism. Sounds like the medical profession could use some of that, too.
Having known you for 20 odd years, I can assure you that you are most certainly some form of a lucky charm. Considering the adversity you've faced on so many levels, I'm amazed your spirit is as strong as it is. I can only conclude that you will live to be 107; in short, you'll outlive the bastards.
Saving a life is as important as anything medical science can achieve, and to accept anything less than a Herculean effort on the part of the medical profession would be shameful. In turn, I also think it is shameful that some 44 million Americans, who live in the richest and best country on Earth, are without health insurance. How many of those are children, who by no acts of their own, suffer just as greatly? If we are talking moral responsibility, this is just as deep a hole we MUST climb out of.
Do you even know what the hippocratic oath says? It says first do no harm. And by putting little babies through misery who have slim to no chance of survival is doing harm. True, there are some miraculous success stories, but you don't hear about the failures.
Furthermore, you argue that everything should be done to save a sick baby's life. Consider these facts: It costs tens of thousands of dollars to treat one preemie with slim to no chance of survival. It would only cost about $100 to immunize third world children against terrible diseases from which hundreds of thousands die every year. Therefore, if you are most concerned about saving as many sick babies as possible, we should reallocate our resources to treat the neglected treateable babies. With ten thousand dollars we could try to save one baby, or we could definitely save hundreds. Now who's standing on the moral higher ground?
You speak so harshly against someone you don't know and who you only heard a few chopped quotes from, and you take it upon yourself to personally attack this doctor. In other words, quit the pretentious high and mighty talk.
It all comes down to the availability of resources, and the fact is that in many (but not all) of the times, resources can be better used to save more people.
See, the ones that pull through can sing their miraculous luck and insist its wrong to consider death for someo of these preemies. However, dead men tell no tales, and the babies that were kept alive agonizingly for weeks only to succumb to death cannot speak here in defense of the doctors humanity in allowing dignified death.
Besides, if youre catholic, dont you believe that babies are innocent anyway and get into heaven? Kepple, if you died as a baby, you woudl be in paradise right now. Is that so bad?
And stop referring to yourself as "we" it makes you look like that big old ancient turtle in that movie "The Neverending Story".