Skip to main content

Saving sick fetuses may have bad outcomes


Growth restriction in an unborn child is the single largest risk factor for stillbirth, yet it is currently missed in most pregnancies. The authors of a report published in the British Medical Journal last month say spotting it early could substantially reduce the risk, and this needs to become a cornerstone of safety and effectiveness in antenatal care.

You might think that with modern ultrasound scans growth restriction would be easy to spot. Yet the report shows that detection ranges from 12.5% to 50% in different maternity units. Such a wide disparity is worrying and according to the authors it depends on staff training and adherence to protocols.

But before we rush into investing resources and rescuing poorly growing fetuses, I think we should consider the implications more carefully. In recent times there has been a trend to 'demedicalise' pregnancy. After all, pregnancy is not an illness. Attention has focussed on the birthing environment and where possible keeping obstetrics at bay.

The authors of the report suggest that with better detection of growth restriction, action could be taken to rescue the fetuses. But, simply saving sick fetuses may not produce outcomes we would wish. Measures that can be taken to enhance fetal growth are extremely limited. It is more likely to drive an increase in caesarean  sections and increase the numbers of babies born premature. Many of these babies are likely to be very poorly and require intensive care.  Many would not survive, and for those that do, they may have long-term handicaps.

Recent reports from the epicure study, a long term follow up of the outcome for babies born prematurely, show that survival for babies born very premature has improved considerably since 1995. Just over half (53%) now survive. However, despite these improvements, the number of babies leaving neonatal units with abnormalities showing on their brain ultrasound scans, and with lung, bowel and eye problems has not diminished. Babies born before 27 weeks "face a battle for survival" and many go on to live with long-term health problems such as lung conditions, learning difficulties and cerebral palsy. The rates of premature birth are on the rise in many European countries and are particularly high in the UK.

Professor Neil Marlow, an MRC-funded researcher from the UCL Institute for Women’s Health and an author of the recent epicure reports, said:

“Our findings show that more babies now survive being born too soon than ever before, which is testament to the highly-skilled and dedicated staff in our neonatal services. But as the number of children that survive pre-term birth continues to rise, so will the number who experience disability throughout their lives. This is likely to have an impact on the demand for health, education and social care services.”

Increasing CS deliveries and the numbers of babies born prematurely will increase the burden on already stretched neonatal intensive care units. Deciding which fetuses to 'rescue' will depend on availability of such expertise and resources, and on the assessment of likely outcome. It cannot be based simply on the fact that a fetus stops growing. Difficult decisions will have to be made and these should be made from both the obstetric and neonatal care perspective.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Ian Duncan-Smith says he wants to make those on benefits 'better people'!

By any account, the government's austerity strategy is utilitarian. It justifies its approach by the presumed potential ends. It's objective is to cut the deficit, but it has also adopted another objective which is specifically targeted. It seeks to drive people off benefits and 'back to work'.  The two together are toxic to the poorest in society. Those least able to cope are the most affected by the cuts in benefits and the loss of services. It is the coupling of these two strategic aims that make their policies ethically questionable. For, by combining the two, slashing the value of benefits to make budget savings while also changing the benefits system, the highest burden falls on a specific group, those dependent on benefits. For the greater good of the majority, a minority group, those on benefits, are being sacrificed; sacrificed on the altar of austerity. And they are being sacrificed in part so that others may be spared. Utilitarian ethics considers the ba

Keir Starmer has a lot to offer

The Labour Party is in the process of making a decision that will decide whether it can recover from the defeat in 2019 General Election.  All the candidates have much to offer and are making their case well. No doubt for some the decision will be difficult.  Others may well have made up their minds on the simple binary of Left-wing-Right-wing. The choice should be whoever is best placed to pull the party together.  Someone who can form a front bench of all talents and across the spectrum in the party. That is what Harold Wilson did in the 1960s.  His government included Roy Jenkins on the right and Barbar Castle on the left; it included Crossman and Crossland, and Tony Benn with Jim Callaghan.  It presented a formidable team. Keir Starmer brings to the top table a formidable career outside politics, having been a human rights lawyer and then Director of Public Prosecutions.   He is a man of integrity and commitment who believes in a fairer society where opportunities are more

The lion and the wildebeest

Birds flock, fish school, bees swarm, but social being is more than simply sticking together.  Social groups enable specialisation and a sharing of abilities, and enhances ability, learning and creating new tricks. The more a group works together, the more effective they become as a team.  Chimpanzees learn from each other how to use stones to crack nuts, or sticks to get termites.  All around us we see cooperation and learning in nature.  Nature is inherently creative.  Pulling together becomes a rallying cry during a crisis.  We have heard it throughout the coronavirus pandemic.  "We are all in this together", a mantra that encourages people to adopt a common strategy. In an era of 'self-interest' and 'survival of the fittest,'  and 'selfish gene', we lose sight of the obvious conclusion from the evidence all around us.   Sticking together is more often the better approach.  This is valid for the lion as it is also for the wildebeest.   We don't