Prematurity seems to be a recurring theme lately. Drudge today links to a story about Britain’s smallest baby. The current issue of the Reader’s Digest also has a story on prematurity, Miracle Girl. While both articles are inspiring, reminding us how far medicine has come to save even the smallest of infants, the RD article is disturbing as well. The girl profiled in the “Miracle Girl” article was treated by liquid ventilation.
The breathable liquid comprises perfluorocarbons (PFCs), which carry more oxygen than blood and mimic the properties of amniotic fluid. In theory, you could dive into a swimming pool filled with this liquid and breathe. When put directly into an infant’s lungs, liquid venitlation creates a gentler and less invasive environment for the preemie than traditional respirators, which can be harsh and can still engender the kinds of debilitating afflictions that may follow a child for a lifetime.
Miracle Girl was part of an experimental use of liquid ventillation. While only weighing 24 ounces at birth, the little girl is now a healthy and academically gifted 12 year old. But for some reason, this life saving technique has been all but ignored. The article contains this haunting explanation:
Some critics argue that liquid ventilation is a distraction. Their concern is that if PFC liquids were widely available to save extremely premature babies’ lives, there will be less attention paid to the problems that lead to prematurity, such as drug and alcohol abuse during pregnancy.
This excuse is pitiful. We’re supposed to sit by and watch while these little lives slip away, because we haven’t yet solved larger societal problems? It echoes all too familiarly common pro-choice accusations that pro-lifers would better use their time and energy to solve the problems of poverty and starvation before turning our attention toward those tiniest and most vulnerable among us.
