The Preemie Story On Doug's Blog

[debrand]

First, there is no last name so there is no way to determine if the story is true. Those of you who had premature babies might know if the details are basically correct. This is supposed to have happened 18 years ago

Since the baby was only five months along, the doctors first encouraged us to abort. Then, despite the fact that the baby was breach, they recommended a vaginal delivery — knowing that the baby most likely would not survive anything but a Cesarean. (Before the birth, we had attempted to transfer Kaye to a major medical facility closer to home. However, they had refused to intervene on the baby’s behalf in any way — no C-section, no life support, nothing.) We could see the baby’s heartbeat on the monitor, so we decided to go for the Cesarean.

My first thought was that the doctor obviously performed a Cesarean like the couple asked. I'm not certain why vaginal delivery would be preferred over a Cesarean for a breach baby but I assume that it had something to do with the health of the mother. I am guessing that they knew that a Cesarean offered the fetus a better chance for survival because the doctor told them. They were probably given options and likely outcomes. The doctor gave his or her recommendation and they were able to choose. That is what is supposed to happen. Unless they want there to be no option to save the mother's life over the child, it sounds as if the doctor acted in an ethical manner.

For three months, Kaye sat at Olivia’s side by the incubator — cooing to her, caressing her, giving her that “will to live†which is at least as important as all the marvels of modern technology. (Our four kids and I commuted 400 miles each weekend to be with Mom.) Kaye was an oddity on the intensive care ward - - sometimes welcomed, sometimes resented. Many of the other babies had been virtually abandoned — visited only occasionally, if at all. The hospital staff was attentive and technologically competent, but was only gradually learning to appreciate the parents’ crucial role.

I don't know what premature care was like for infants nearly twenty years ago. But it seems awfully judgemental to decide that other parents abandoned their children. It also seems to strain credulity to think that only Kaye-out of all the mothers of premature infants- insisted on sitting by her newborn.

Under Bill Clinton’s health care plan [and Obama’s], babies like Olivia would be denied life support. If the child doesn’t fit the guidelines, the “preemie†doctor would be prohibited from intervening to save her. Too premature, too uncertain, too costly — all part of health rationing, you know. Our country is in deep trouble when we let the government decide who lives and who dies.

Isn't Health care already rationed according to a patient's income? The There are no sources proving that a premature infant would be allowed to die under either Clinton's or Obama's health plans.

What do you all think of this letter?

http://www.visionforum.com/news/blogs/doug/

[Glass Cowcatcher]

My wife Kaye’s water broke while we were spending Christmas in Yosemite. She was rushed to a hospital in California’s Central Valley, 200 miles from our Sonoma home. Kaye had already lost two babies at birth and six from miscarriages, so I was pretty sure this one was a goner.

So she has already had 8 failed pregnancies, and instead of being at home, she's trapsing around Yellowstone? :shock:

On math alone I think there's some futzing with the story. 5 months is about 24-ish weeks which even recently--let alone 20 years ago--is on the hinterlands of survivability.

Doctors aren't reluctant to intervene because NICUs are abortion mills. It's because preemies that young often do not survive, and if they do, may have pronounced disabilities.

[valsa]

I don't know what premature care was like for infants nearly twenty years ago. But it seems awfully judgemental to decide that other parents abandoned their children. It also seems to strain credulity to think that only Kaye-out of all the mothers of premature infants- insisted on sitting by her newborn.

When I did my nursing rotation in the "special care" nursery (for babies who were sick but not enough to need a full blown NICU), there was an average of 5-6 babies per day in there. In my 7 hour shift, I saw one, maybe two, parents visiting their babies during that entire time frame. Why? Well, a lot of times it was economical. Fathers usually have to work, which can prevent them from spending much time with their babies, even if they want to be with them in the nursery. Mothers, depending on how long the babies has been in the SCN, are usually either recovering from the delivery (especially in cases of a difficult, life-threatening pregnancy), busy caring for their other children, or working to make up for having the baby earlier than expected (whereas I'm guessing Kaye was already a SAHM)

[Witsec7]

First off let me say Doug is a tool.

Second, Geo Bush, took the lead with futile car laws in Tex. Under his watch kids were unplugged.

[Beammeup]

My understanding of the "Born Alive" act is that their claim that the baby would be prohibited medical care is absolute bunk. Instead medical care is required.

As for the mothers not being there, that is because they have other very pressing needs to tend to, like sleep, going back to work to feed their other children because maternity leave is non existent in this country. I was there twice a day every day, but I was gone for over 12 hours between visits because I was working/sleeping. Also if you have never been there as a parent, you do not understand the hell that the NICU is. I HAD to leave to stay sane. It is intensely isolating. I did my NICU time prior to smart phones, but at the time cell phones were banned, there was no internet access, I was intensely alone in there. There also were limits on how much I "could" hold my baby, what I could do, no access to a window. I once entered the hospital on a hot day, and when I left I realized I had missed a powerful rain storm. Screw them for being judgmental assholes.

As for the sometimes welcomed/ sometimes resented part that is very true. Depending on the nurse, I was very wanted or I was an intrusion and a nuisance in how they take care of "their" baby.

There is no reason to create this sentimental propaganda except to show how Obama is a baby killer.

[Elle]

The death-panel thing is a creation of Sarah Palin's. There is no amount of money considered to be too much to save a newborn baby, regardless of the parents' ability to pay of their insurance. Under Clinton and Obama, that baby would have gotten more care than under people like Palin and Santorum since it's nut cases on the right who favor letting people and their kids get only the care they can afford.

At no point, EVER, has it been suggested that the only medical coverage options should be what the government decide. There has NEVER been talk about nixing private insurance companies.

I get a strong feeling this is a story Doug's exaggerating. And it pisses me off he's passing judgement on other parents. Was Kaye really so concerned with everyone else that she paid so much attention to every other baby? Presuming any of this is true. When I was born, I spent time in the NICU, and for some babies, how much time parents were allowed to visit was very little. My mom was allowed 10 minutes every 4 hours during the day. That was it. It just depends on why the baby is in the NICU. And to say that the nurses sometimes just didn't care? No nurse who works in the NICU is there for the hell of it. If one of those pre-VF morons were in there acting holier than thou, I can see nurses getting frustrated with that moron. But none of them are going to not care about the life of a baby. He makes it sound like the doctors were trying to kill the baby, but doctors rarely will suggest a vaginal over a c-section when there's even a hint of a potential problem, so I really think this story might be entirely made up. The only person not attacked in Doug's little story is Kaye. Everyone else, from other parents to the nursing staff to the doctors, fell short.

[sassycupcake]

Kaye brought Olivia home to Sonoma five weeks earlier than her original due date. In the first three months since birth, Olivia has increased her weight five-fold. She has no apparent abnormalities. She breathes without canned oxygen and sucks voraciously on her doll-sized bottle — without force-feeding, regimented schedules, or blinking alarms.

I'm going to have to call shenanigans. A premature infant born "at five months" would be 20-24 weeks along, which, as was mentioned above, is considered barely viable today. Many doctors would recommend only palliative care for an infant in those circumstances with today's technology; I cannot imagine an infant surviving like that twenty years ago.

It is also ridiculously rare that a micropreemie gets to go home before its due date today. A good number of these infants are actually hospitalized months after their due date because of the complications that micropreemies face. (See: Josie Duggar). The chances that an infant born at 24 weeks gestation in 1994 survived, went home more than a month before its expected due date, and then didn't require O2 or any sort of medical monitoring are virtually zero.

Doug Phillips is a tool that appropriates the suffering of actual parents of actual micropreemies.

[emmiedahl]

They want to trust in God even while using the best tools of their enemy: science.

Just sayin'. Maybe they should have just trusted in God. If God knows better than doctors when a baby should be born, then He knows better than doctors when a baby should live.

[CrazySister]

Maybe they should have just trusted in God. If God knows better than doctors when a baby should be born, then He knows better than doctors when a baby should live.

How dare you think like a rational, reasonable adult! Shame on you! ;)

[slickcat79]

I'm glad someone posted about this. I noticed the story when I went to vote in the poll.

The first thing that jumped out at me was that they were "encouraged to abort", which pings my bullshit meter. I'm actually confused why a woman who had experienced 2 stillbirths and 6 miscarriages was even travelling hundreds of miles from home. He's kind of vague on the gestational age, but I'm going to assume from his description of 5 months and the baby's size, that she was probably 22-25 weeks. No doctor is going to tell a woman in pre-term labor at that stage of gestation that they are going to "abort" the baby, even if they don't expect it to survive delivery. Depending on the actual gestational age, abortion may have even been illegal.

Also, at that size, whether or not the baby was breech would have very little effect on her chances during a vaginal delivery. I would expect a c-section to be recommended because it is faster and gives the doctors greater control when dealing with a baby who could die at any time. I would be willing to bet that the doctors were trying their best to prepare the parents for the loss of a baby who had very little chance of survival. If they were in a place where very few parents came to visit their premature infants and had a less than optimal nursing staff (a big IF), I'd also be willing to bet that they were in a place that saw large numbers of underserved patients. A poorer, less educated population is more likely to have women who have given up their babies, or just women who can't get the time off work to come sit in a hospital all day.

I'm not sure why this man feels that his child's life would not have been saved under socialized medicine. I mean, they tried to have her transferred to another hospital at the time, and her care was denied by their privatized system. I'm sure that was either a policy of their insurace, or a policy of the hospital, in cases where the baby probably had a 2% chance of survival at best. It sucks to think about care being rationed, but it can and does happen under all forms of health coverage. It's certainly not true that pre-term babies born in countries where socialized medicine is provided are automatically left to die.

[desertvixen]

Doug Phillips is a tool that appropriates the suffering of actual parents of actual micropreemies.

This. I call BS.

[debrand]

This is a 2011 story from Fox News

FRANKFURT -- An infant who could be the youngest surviving premature baby in the world was released from a German hospital and resting at home Thursday after spending four months in an incubator.

The baby was born in early November at 21 weeks and five days into the mother's pregnancy, weighing just one pound, German news website The Local reported.

She was not initially expected to survive, as experts generally believe that babies born before the 22nd week of pregnancy will not live. Pregnancies usually last 40 weeks. The little girl, named Frieda, now weighs more than seven pounds and was sent home Wednesday. Doctors said there was no indication that she could not be completely healthy.

There are no reports in medical literature of more premature babies having survived, although The Local said that a Canadian boy, born in 1987 at the same premature age as Frieda, survived

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/health/2011/04/2 ... z1vMKuSUQg

So, in 2011 the youngest premature infant was born at 21 weeks. Twenty years ago if a baby had been born as early, there would have been news coverage. I'm calling BS on his story too

[gardenvarietycitizen]

I'm going to have to call shenanigans. A premature infant born "at five months" would be 20-24 weeks along, which, as was mentioned above, is considered barely viable today. Many doctors would recommend only palliative care for an infant in those circumstances with today's technology; I cannot imagine an infant surviving like that twenty years ago.

I'll second the call. This story has got to be exaggerated at best, if "five months" is included.

I wonder too if the "doctors suggested a vaginal birth" thing (if true) is because they knew the baby's chances were virtually nil or they were planning only palliative care, and the mom had indicated that she'd want to have vaginal births for later babies, and they were recommending that for HER later abilities, or something. But, I don't know, I am not a mom.

I will point out though that for all the booga booga and supposed baby abandonment in this story, it happened BEFORE any Obamacare or Clintoncare or anything like that. So if doctors were refusing this woman and her baby care, it was the oh-so-wonderful American private system that did it. I wonder if this family had good insurance? Perhaps they didn't and THAT had something to do with it, hmm?

The one hospital closer to home that refused them, I would definitely like to know what their official reasoning was. If the dates are in fact as given, I suspect it was because they thought the risk was too high and better to let the kid go.

So, in 2011 the youngest premature infant was born at 21 weeks.

Thanks for the cite. I was thinking the youngest I'd ever heard of was 22 weeks (and that was huge news) so that just confirms.

[gardenvarietycitizen]

Meanwhile I have to laugh at Doug being amazed that people can stuff his internet poll with some programming. Ha ha. Welcome to the Internet, Dougie!

What a tool...

[slickcat79]

So, in 2011 the youngest premature infant was born at 21 weeks. Twenty years ago if a baby had been born as early, there would have been news coverage. I'm calling BS on his story too

And she was born in GERMANY, which (according to wiki) has the oldest universal healthcare system in the world :doh: Doug Phillips is a tool.

[Mommy22alyns]

The death-panel thing is a creation of Sarah Palin's. There is no amount of money considered to be too much to save a newborn baby, regardless of the parents' ability to pay of their insurance. Under Clinton and Obama, that baby would have gotten more care than under people like Palin and Santorum since it's nut cases on the right who favor letting people and their kids get only the care they can afford.

At no point, EVER, has it been suggested that the only medical coverage options should be what the government decide. There has NEVER been talk about nixing private insurance companies.

I get a strong feeling this is a story Doug's exaggerating. And it pisses me off he's passing judgement on other parents. Was Kaye really so concerned with everyone else that she paid so much attention to every other baby? Presuming any of this is true. When I was born, I spent time in the NICU, and for some babies, how much time parents were allowed to visit was very little. My mom was allowed 10 minutes every 4 hours during the day. That was it. It just depends on why the baby is in the NICU. And to say that the nurses sometimes just didn't care? No nurse who works in the NICU is there for the hell of it. If one of those pre-VF morons were in there acting holier than thou, I can see nurses getting frustrated with that moron. But none of them are going to not care about the life of a baby. He makes it sound like the doctors were trying to kill the baby, but doctors rarely will suggest a vaginal over a c-section when there's even a hint of a potential problem, so I really think this story might be entirely made up. The only person not attacked in Doug's little story is Kaye. Everyone else, from other parents to the nursing staff to the doctors, fell short.

This is what pinged my bullshit meter too. That's incredibly insulting to the nurses to imply that they were cold.

[Sola]

I'd say this preemie was more likely to have been born at the 24/25 week mark. Anything less than that I would (to use Dougie's wording) call this story fishy...

It's not unlikely that doctors would ask if parents wanted to make heroic efforts on a 24 weeker. The survival rate now is poor, 20 years ago it was worse. To actually get a healthy child at the end of it, well the chances are very low.

I would have thought that a c-section was used, c-sections are kinder on preemies. I'm the mum of a preemie so I know. The doctors might have suggested a vaginal birth due to the likely poor survival rate even WITH a c-section. VBAC when the c-section has been to deliver a preemie is dangerous. The cut is different; it's usually vertical (mine is) rather than horizontal at the pubic area. Although now new research has been coming out which may point to fewer c-sections with preemies (there isn't that much difference in survival rates from 25 weeks onward).

I don't think we're getting the full truth. Dougie isn't likely to be blatantly lying, he is lying by omission by leaving out a shit load of facts.

As for the mother, if she had previous history of multiple miscarriages and premature births, WTF was she doing in Yellowstone?

[Beammeup]

I'll second the call. This story has got to be exaggerated at best, if "five months" is included.

I wonder too if the "doctors suggested a vaginal birth" thing (if true) is because they knew the baby's chances were virtually nil or they were planning only palliative care, and the mom had indicated that she'd want to have vaginal births for later babies, and they were recommending that for HER later abilities, or something. But, I don't know, I am not a mom.

Thanks for the cite. I was thinking the youngest I'd ever heard of was 22 weeks (and that was huge news) so that just confirms.

This is the reason that I was given to me before my baby was of a viable size and gestation. There are risks to having surgery not associated with vaginal births, and the increased risks to future births and pregnancies. Once my baby was viable, the plan went to a csection to make the process easier for the baby. I had one doctor more forcefully that I might have preferred ensure I understood my options including termination, but no one encouraged me to abort.

[SealFan1963]

Sounds like bullshit to me.

First of all I'm wondering why she was out and about knowing that she had history of failed pregnancies, secondly, even

18 years ago, a baby born at 24 weeks was viable though there was a very high incidence of major disabilities and only about a 20% chance of survival. I find it hard to believe that the doctors recommended an abortion, more likely they recommended a birth and an offer to let nature take it's course with no heroic measures.

As far as Kaye being the only parent in the NICU ~ more bullshit. Everyone that I have ever known with a preemie baby has spent every second they can next to that baby's incubator.

As far as the staff only being technically competent and just learning how important a parent was in the NICU ~ WTF! Every NICU nurse I have ever seen is very protective of "her" baby and is anything but cold.

It's all just propaganda for their cause.

[SunnyAndrsn]

There is so much to call shenanigans on in this story, I'm not sure where to start. First off, the gestational age, which others have well addressed. Second, the lack of media coverage of this micro preemie surviving such odds 20 years ago.

I don't believe that this wife was an oddity that the spouse claims. The only time family irritates me at work is when they won't let me care for the patient, and then I nicely (of course) ask them to step out for a few minutes and I show them the family waiting room and a pot of coffee. We just celebrated a former 31-weeker's 16th birthday, and kangaroo care was already the norm, so although this was a few years after Dougie's supposed story, I'm pretty sure that touch and the importance of bonding with mom was well known at that time.

Rushed to abort? I doubt it. It's fundie speak for "We were informed of all of our options, which is the medically responsible thing to do."

Offered less than optimal options for a successful delivery? Again, I'm skeptical. A breach delivery of a 20-24 week fetus unlikely to survive long present less physical complications for the mother than a c-section does. Again, seems like a responsible provider was looking out for the best interests of his patient.

Many simple innovations could have improved these babies’ environment immensely: dimmed lights, soft music, screens to buffer their raucous surroundings, some form of caring attention to offset the jabbing and poking of medical procedures. As I would stroll down the hall after midnight, the eerie light of left-on televisions would flicker over each sleeping baby’s isolette. In a poignant way, Caribbean travelogues and chattering game shows were often these little ones’ only companions.

This has changed in the past 20 years dramatically. With the exceptions of the lights stuck in poor Josie Duggar's face, most preemies will have dim lighting and a quiet environment with minimal stimulation. The Level I NICU I shadowed in as a student was amazing.

This guy is FOS. I recently finished a certification in neonatal resuscitation, and the guideline for trying to save an infant isn't black and white. It's left up to the parents to make the decision.

"In conditions associated with uncertain prognosis in which survival is borderline, the morbidity rate is relatively high, and the anticipated burden to the child is high, parental desires concerning initiation of resuscitation should be supported (Class Indeterminate)." This is from my NRP manual.

We're supposed to believe this woman's water broke 200 miles from home and they just happened to be right on top of a fantastic high tech NICU? Why the hell where they so far from home when she was already so high risk with two stillbirths and 6 m/c?

Seems this is a popular store for the National Right to Life. Dougie's not even that original! http://www.nationalrighttolifenews.org/ ... t-to-life/

[Minerva]

I'm glad someone posted about this. I noticed the story when I went to vote in the poll.

The first thing that jumped out at me was that they were "encouraged to abort", which pings my bullshit meter. I'm actually confused why a woman who had experienced 2 stillbirths and 6 miscarriages was even travelling hundreds of miles from home. He's kind of vague on the gestational age, but I'm going to assume from his description of 5 months and the baby's size, that she was probably 22-25 weeks. No doctor is going to tell a woman in pre-term labor at that stage of gestation that they are going to "abort" the baby, even if they don't expect it to survive delivery. Depending on the actual gestational age, abortion may have even been illegal.

Also, at that size, whether or not the baby was breech would have very little effect on her chances during a vaginal delivery. I would expect a c-section to be recommended because it is faster and gives the doctors greater control when dealing with a baby who could die at any time. I would be willing to bet that the doctors were trying their best to prepare the parents for the loss of a baby who had very little chance of survival. If they were in a place where very few parents came to visit their premature infants and had a less than optimal nursing staff (a big IF), I'd also be willing to bet that they were in a place that saw large numbers of underserved patients. A poorer, less educated population is more likely to have women who have given up their babies, or just women who can't get the time off work to come sit in a hospital all day.

I'm not sure why this man feels that his child's life would not have been saved under socialized medicine. I mean, they tried to have her transferred to another hospital at the time, and her care was denied by their privatized system. I'm sure that was either a policy of their insurace, or a policy of the hospital, in cases where the baby probably had a 2% chance of survival at best. It sucks to think about care being rationed, but it can and does happen under all forms of health coverage. It's certainly not true that pre-term babies born in countries where socialized medicine is provided are automatically left to die.

Bear in mind that fundies have a much broader definition of abortion than the rest of the world. Remember how Karen Santorum, when being hospitalized for the complication that ultimately lost her the fetus, considered accelerating her labour to be abortion?

[SealFan1963]

If you Google Hugh and Kaye Martin you get some interesting results.

http://www.integralworld.net/martin07.html

[SunnyAndrsn]

Another reason this pings my BS meter: They tried to transfer to a higher level of care and they were told the facility wouldn't do anything to help them. Okay...then how did the facility they stay at magically have the equipment it needed to help them? The dad says that Olivia was about a pound at birth. How many hospitals had equipment to intubate a less than 500g infant 20 years ago? It's extremely rare for a baby that small to survive even today.

From the pictures on the National Right to Life site, she looks quite a bit older than mid 20 weeks. I'm guessing that they were several weeks off on the due date. I'd guess closer to 28-30 weeks.

Note that the following uses gestational age (from conception point), which the couple in Dougie's article wouldn't have had: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetal_viability:

During the past several decades, neonatal care has improved with advances in medical science, and therefore the limit of viability has moved earlier.[10] As of 2006, the two youngest children to survive premature birth are thought to be James Elgin Gill (born on 20 May 1987 in Ottawa, Canada, at 21 weeks and 5 days gestational age),[11][12] and Amillia Taylor (born on 24 October 2006 in Miami, Florida, at 21 weeks and 6 days gestational age).[13][14] Both children were born just under 22 weeks from fertilization, or a few days past the midpoint of an average full-term pregnancy.

Amillia Taylor is also often cited as the most-premature baby.[15] She was born on 24 October 2006 in Miami, Florida, at 21 weeks and 6 days gestation.[16] This report has created some confusion as her gestation was measured from the date of conception (through in-vitro fertilization) rather than the date of her mother's last menstrual period making her appear 2 weeks younger than if gestation was calculated by the more common method.[17] At birth, she was 9 inches (22.86 cm) long and weighed 10 ounces (283 grams).[15] She suffered digestive and respiratory problems, together with a brain hemorrhage. She was discharged from the Baptist Children's Hospital on 20 February 2007.[15]

The lower limit of viability is approximately five months gestational age, and usually later.[18]

[SunnyAndrsn]

If you Google Hugh and Kaye Martin you get some interesting results.

http://www.integralworld.net/martin07.html

Very interesting indeed! Wonder if Dougie knows any of this?

[Katie Scarlett]

Sounds like bullshit to me.

First of all I'm wondering why she was out and about knowing that she had history of failed pregnancies, secondly, even

18 years ago, a baby born at 24 weeks was viable though there was a very high incidence of major disabilities and only about a 20% chance of survival. I find it hard to believe that the doctors recommended an abortion, more likely they recommended a birth and an offer to let nature take it's course with no heroic measures.

As far as Kaye being the only parent in the NICU ~ more bullshit. Everyone that I have ever known with a preemie baby has spent every second they can next to that baby's incubator.

As far as the staff only being technically competent and just learning how important a parent was in the NICU ~ WTF! Every NICU nurse I have ever seen is very protective of "her" baby and is anything but cold.

It's all just propaganda for their cause.

I'm just seething right now! My daughter was an NICU baby in 1993, and NOTHING in this description sounds like our experience. Nineteen years after our NICU experience, I still volunteer at our local Women & Children's hospital NICU and on the the national level with an NICU collaborative as a parent advisor; through that I've been privileged to know doctors, nurses, respiratory therapists, and other NICU parents from all over the US and Canada. I find nothing in this description that reflects the reality of NICU care today or then. Nothing.

No doctor I know would advise an abortion to a mother in early labor. No doctor I know would advise a procedure specifically because it would DECREASE the chance of survival. Every single NICU parent I've known, and I've now met several dozen, has felt guilty that they couldn't be in the NICU more, even if, like me, they were able to be there every waking moment. (Since we didn't have older children to care for and I had generous maternity benefits, I only went home to sleep and pump.) There was NEVER a TV or music on anywhere near the babies. The lights were ALWAYS dimmed unless they were needed. The nurses encouraged us to ask questions, touch her, hold her (once she was cleared for that) rock her, bathe her, talk to her, etc. all the time. They even occasionally took up a collection for some of the moms who lived out of town and couldn't afford a hotel room. When babies were not able to survive, they cried with the moms and dads as they said goodbye to a child they had barely gotten to know.

As for the parents who wrote the letters (assuming Doug didn't make the story up out of whole cloth) I wish I could tell them that I know they believe they are telling this lie in order to achieve what they think is a greater good, but they are throwing a group of people under the bus who made the most unbearable event of my life not just bearable, but almost normal. You are heaping guilt on parents whose parenting experience is already unimaginably guilt-ridden and lonely, not to mention parents who live with the possibility of their child's death hanging over their heads every minute of the day.

I try never to attach the label "evil" to persons, only to actions, but if ever there was a situation to make me rethink that, this is it.

I need a shower. And wine. And a hug from my 19 year old teenincy preemie baby.