'English doctors tell mother it's against the rules to save her premature baby"

From the Mail Online:

Doctors left a premature baby to die because he was born two days too early, his devastated mother claimed yesterday.

Sarah Capewell begged them to save her tiny son, who was born just 21 weeks and five days into her pregnancy - almost four months early.

They ignored her pleas and allegedly told her they were following national guidelines that babies born before 22 weeks should not be given medical treatment.

The English system should be a warning flare for us, Americans. First, the English system has established "enlightened" bureaucratic panels with which to determine "standard practice:"

These specific guidelines were drawn up by the Nuffield Council on Bioethics after a two-year inquiry which took evidence from doctors, nurses and religious leaders.

The irony:

...But weeks before they were published in 2006, a child was born in the U.S. which proved a baby could survive at earlier than 22 weeks if it was given medical treatment.

This stark difference illustrates the present difference in philosophies between our current system and the one that we stand to gain. If we let government calculate who is worth treating, then certain portions of our population will be left for dead, because, in the words of the British "experts":

Image via Wikipedia

'If gestational age is certain and less than 23+0 (i.e at 22 weeks) it would be considered in the best interests of the baby, and standard practice, for resuscitation not to be carried out.'

It should be noted, that HR 3200 also talks of a federal health board (p. 30 of bill) given the job of determining medical standards. And it should be of greater note that Tom Daschle, named the one of the most critical people in the present Health Care debate, is very much enamored with the British system and believes that we should strive to emulate it.