Micro-Preemies - Blessing or Burden, Part Ii

Interfering Mother In Law - Micro-Preemies - Blessing or Burden, Part Ii

Hi friends. Now, I learned all about Interfering Mother In Law - Micro-Preemies - Blessing or Burden, Part Ii. Which could be very helpful if you ask me and also you. Micro-Preemies - Blessing or Burden, Part Ii

About a year ago, my husband, a hospital pharmacist for more than forty years, came home from work with a story that broke my heart. He told me about a baby weighing one and a half pounds whose mother had been supplanted by the state of Texas. This tiny mite, a girl no bigger than my thumb, not only had the lowly obstacles faced by such babies for whom the decision to implement life maintain had been made for them, but had to go through seclusion because her 14-year-old mother was addicted to crack cocaine for whom I also feel badly. More than anyone else, I wished that child peace for eternity and found myself angry that she was not given what I have since learned is known as relieve care. That is when the infants are given to their mothers, who cuddle them until they quietly pass.

What I said. It is not the conclusion that the real about Interfering Mother In Law. You check out this article for home elevators a person wish to know is Interfering Mother In Law.

Interfering Mother In Law

At the time, I made note of the incident and didn't think much more about it, but within the month, I learned that the diminutive girl had grown a pound, but had run up 0,000 in pharmacy charges for one month, which I found remarkable. But, when she was joined by three others like her, all girls, who were all faced with the same obstacles, I had to request who was making the decision to put these tiny, suffering children through so much pain and at what cost - both financial and emotional.

I had not put together a newspaper record I had read a while before about the mother of a 10-year-old boy who was in a permanent vegetative state and on Medicaid in Texas. The decision had been made by the administrator of the hospital where he languished, to quit his life support, to which his mother vehemently objected. She went to court, but lost.

Apparently, my husband told me, that is what happened here, but instead of terminating the life support, this hospital administrator decided to implement it. Honestly, I saw red, especially when I learned who is making the decisions, but worse, there is no appropriate in place for making them by anyone.

When my husband came home with a Pamper so tiny that I still can't believe was manufactured for a human being, it occurred to me that there is no ifs ands or buts a shop for this and other micro-preemie merchandise. Frankly, it is amazing to me, but then again, I have been blessed with two full-term children. The one I lost, the first, I was not given the option of either to save him, which is fine with me. I felt that the only fair decision to everyone, was to realize that I loved him adequate to let him go. I have had to face life and death decisions for others in my life since then, made the same decision, would do it again because I took the time to grieve and let them go.

So, it was quite a surprise to start receiving buckets of e-mails, apparently from mothers of preemies, micro-preemies, full term children born with other long term condition problems, and photos of practically all of them. I received comparison photos of tiny infants in isolettes, covered and surrounded by beeping equipment, and the same children when they were older, smiling, each adorable. My record had found its way to a micro-preemie blog (or blogs), and the bloggers were encouraged to spew their wrath in my direction.

Boy, were their mothers ever angry with me and my stated views. I never realized that premature children were so controversial with diminutive occasion for conference other than maintain from websites geared to handling, and hopefully, overcoming problems that I can't begin to imagine, but of which I was no ifs ands or buts made aware.

I have also received e-mails from mothers who were denied the option of letting their children go. One woman wrote an e-mail which was forwarded to me from the editor of AmChron and CalChron where the item appeared, and cheered my raising the issue. Her child was "saved" and to date has incurred more than million for her care. I have heard from others who are just as frustrated because the procedure of their lives and that of their families was chosen for them, very much against their wills.

I have not, however, heard from those who made and were given the option of letting their children go. I hypothesize that is because they have grieved and gotten on with their lives. Apparently, they don't spend time on preemie websites, and so, never saw my article.

But, I have to say that most, not all of the e-mails I received from preemie-mothers were rude beyond reason. One woman, who no ifs ands or buts never met me, and knows even less about me than I now do about her, cursed my use of Medicare (for which I am not distinguished because of my age) and informed me that I had no right to deny millions of dollars for her child's care, but I had a lot of nerve expecting her generation to pay for mine. Though the record never mentioned inexpressive assurance or Medicaid in any state other than Texas, I heard about how selfish (even to call me a Nazi and Hitler - that from the only man who wrote me - twice), small minded and cruel I was not to consider the parents suffering at their children's isolettes while they fought the good fight even though their fight was being picked up by inexpressive insurance. Many were from troops families, and even some would adopt the motherless ones if they only had the room.

As for the micros in my story, I was advised that my point of view was selfish, cruel and thoughtless. What made me God, many wanted to know, because any of these children could grow up to be President or a scientist, or anyone and I, personally, had the gall to stand in their way. One expressed the view that the publication that printed the record should have banned it out of notice for suffering babies and their families. I answered that as an American, I no ifs ands or buts have the right to write and issue anyone I want, just as she has the right to read what I write, misread it, or not read it, and it is not I who caused their suffering.

Let me point out that each of these state-owned children are left without the one person in the world who would have given them a hypothesize to fight - their mothers and/or other loving house members. Sadly, the only human touch they have ever known is from strangers. No one is there to sit beside their isolettes and fight for them. It is not likely that any of them will come to be President or anyone else because three have cerebral palsy and all of them are not only blind, but have a grim outlook at best.

I am going to restate the focus of that story - If anyone reading this story has to unload on someone, then look to none other than the previous governor of Texas, George W. Bush. Remember his tender heart after he became president, when it came to interfering with Terry Schaivo, the Georgia woman in a permanent vegetative state a few years back? The woman had been in that condition for years while her husband fought to take off her feeding tube while her parents objected at every step. Funny, but the law allows one pre-determined decider, and it's not George W., but the husband.

However, contrary to his soft heart for Ms. Schaivo, Gov. Bush signed into law a provision in Texas that gave hospital administrators the authority to order termination of life maintain for victims such as she, but who are on Medicaid. My point was, that since the hospital administrator at the babies' hospital had the authority not to resuscitate micro-preemies, he chose instead, to spend millions of taxpayers' dollars on recovery them, when other hospital administrators in Texas, with the same authority, chose to save none, even when mothers wanted them to. My point was that there should be equal ground rules applied by all those empowered to make these life and death decisions. Frankly, it had nothing to do with me. I just raised the issue so I guess that makes me the messenger. And, yes, when it comes to spending taxpayer money, especially in these amounts, there has to be agreed-upon guidelines, and the agreers have to be those picking up the tab.

Let me state clearly, I don't wish your children dead, a condition over which I was accused too many times to count, nor did I ever. I believe this is someone else issue of choice, and should be covered by our national love of privacy. Weather to give birth or save a baby brought too early into this world, is the decision exclusively of the mother, not the father, the doctor or the hospital administrator. Where there are blanks on the page, they need to be filled in. These decisions must be taken in advance. There is too much blurring and a lack of continuity as the issue stands.

As the mother who wrote about her child upon whom millions have been spent, agreeing to her, because the doctors wanted to experiment, all very much against her will, there needs to be social conference about the other side of premature birth. Mothers patting each other on the back for their nobleness in sacrificing all things to keep their children alive and cursing those who disagree isn't what is needed here. It isn't anyone's business what option anyone makes concerning the fate of their families on any level.

I thank the preemie blogs for raising the issue, but not in the way it was done. I was not ready to undertake this discussion, but since it came up, I stand by my opinion, and respect yours, anyone it is.

I hope you will get new knowledge about Interfering Mother In Law. Where you'll be able to offer utilization in your daily life. And above all, your reaction is passed about Interfering Mother In Law.