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

His way or none? Why I can't vote for Jeremy

There is an assumption that all would be well with the Labour Party if people hadn't expressed their genuine concern with what they consider the inadequacies of Jeremy Corbyn's leadership. If only, it is said, the Parliamentary Labour Party and his Shadow Cabinet had supported him, instead of undermining him, all would have been fine. If they had been quiet and towed the line, then the party would not have been in the mess it is in. So, should they have stayed silent, or speak of their concerns? There comes a point when the cost of staying silent outweighs the cost of speaking out. This is a judgment. Many call it a coup by the PLP. They paint a picture of a right-wing PLP out of touch with the membership.  This is the narrative of the Corbyn camp. But Jeremy Corbyn, over the decades he has been in politics, showed the way.  It was Jeremy Corbyn who opposed almost all Labour leaders and rarely held back from speaking out, or voting time and again against the party line. As

Mr Duncan-Smith offers a disingenuous and divisive comparison

Some time ago, actually it was a long time ago when I was in my early teens, someone close to me bought a table. It was an early flat pack variety. It came with a top and four legs. He followed the instructions to the letter screwing the legs into the top. But when he had completed it the table wobbled. One leg he explained was shorter than the other three; so he sawed a bit from each of the other legs. The table wobbled. One leg, he explained, was longer than the other three. So, he sawed a bit off. The table wobbled. He went on cutting the legs, but the table continued to wobble. Cut, cut, cut! By this time he had convinced himself there was no alternative to it.  He ended up with a very low table indeed, supported by four very stumpy legs and a bit of cardboard placed under one of them to stop it wobbling on the uneven floor.  Mr Duncan-Smith argues that we need a 1% cap on benefits to be 'fair to average earners'. Average  earners have seen their incomes rise by less tha