Extreme lifesaving measures..

Sharon - posted on 03/04/2011 ( 13 moms have responded )

11,585

12

1315

http://www.metro.co.uk/news/857067-ella-...


Ella: The stillborn baby brought back to life after being frozen

A stillborn baby was brought back to life after ‘bleeding to death’ in the womb and then escaped brain damage when doctors froze her body for three days.


Ella Claxton was delivered after the placenta had ruptured and become detached. Her mother Rachel’s cervix, was only 3cm dilated instead of the normal 10cm.

Doctors worked for 25 minutes to revive her before they detected a heartbeat. But they feared her brain would be damaged because she was starved of oxygen during the birth.

Ella was taken to another hospital for cutting-edge treatment in which her body temperature was lowered to below the level at which hypothermia occurs, to ease the swelling on her brain.

Her mother, who is now campaigning for the technology to be more widely available on the NHS, said: ‘She’s our little miracle and every day she gives us new hope.’

Ella was born nine months ago at Peterborough District Hospital. Yesterday, Ms Claxton said: ‘The midwife was crying, my partner Jason was crying and no one could tell me what was going on.

‘I begged them to tell me what was happening but I already knew she was dead because it had been so long and I still hadn’t heard her cry.

‘Then, after what seemed like an eternity, I heard someone say, “She’s with us”. I couldn’t believe it.’

However, doctors told the couple Ella would need to go to Addenbrookes Hospital in Cambridge to receive the ‘freezing’ treatment.

There, she was wrapped in a cooling blanket to bring her temperature down from a normal 37C to 33.5C.

Her father, Jason Anderson, 33, said: ‘I laid my hand on her head and she was ice-cold to the touch.’

After three days, her temperature was returned to normal; she was allowed home eight days later. Ella still needs physiotherapy but her brain function is normal.

Ms Claxton said: ‘So far, she’s gone from strength to strength.’
************************************************************************************************8
They saved a baby!! YAY!!!!

how much did it cost? How many people could have been helped instead of one baby?

Don't get me wrong. My babys' life is worth ANY amount of money. But they didn't spend their money, the spent the governments money and there is no option of paying it back it back.

In this day where our governments are going bankrupt is this really a good idea?

MOST HELPFUL POSTS

Lady Heather - posted on 03/04/2011

2,448

17

91

Honestly, we spend millions of dollars in this country saving the lives of people who made themselves ill through poor choices like smoking, bad diet, lack of exercise, unsafe sex and other risky behaviours. How much do you think we spend on lung cancer caused directly by smoking? Masses. So to go to this effort to save someone who is truly innocent and who did nothing to deserve her condition other than being born - that does not seem like a big deal to me.

Tara - posted on 03/04/2011

2,567

14

114

I think it's a great advancement for technology, I've heard how they kind of figured this out, I'm looking for a link to the story I read before.
But yes,Sharon to me it's worth every dime, and in our country it would all be paid for through our taxes, everyone's taxes so that in the future more babies could be saved as well they believe this kind of treatment could also be used with people who have suffered head trauma.
If they don't test it to see if it works, how will they ever know?
And what better way to test it than on a new baby? Whose chance of survival is minimal and as you said her life is really only important to the parents so if it didn't work only they would suffer.

Jodi - posted on 03/04/2011

3,562

36

3907

To be honest, I think this story is about more than just saving one baby. This is some amazing technology they have here, which, with further work, could become far more affordable and widely used in the futre for various purposes.

So while I can see the issue with the cost to the government, I was also fascinated by it to the point where I see this as a really positive direction for medicine.

13 Comments

View replies by

[deleted account]

The technology was being paid for long before it was being used to save lives, so why not use it to save lives now that you have it? Trust me, that technology did not just magically appear, it has been decades in the making, and millions of dollars, yes tax dollars, healthcare dollars, have gone into funding it. Yes, it is expensive, but it was expensive before it was saving lives, and no one complained about the money spent on research and experiments to find out if it could save lives, but we want to complain about the money being spent to use it for saving lives?

Also, It bothers me when people say drug companies are over charging for a product that costs very little to produce because it is simply not true....well, it's not true in the US but I cannot speak for other countries. In the US, drug developers spend millions of dollars, sometimes billions, researching, testing, and developing new drugs. During that research and development time they make absolutely no profit on the drug, because they cannot sell it yet. It often takes nearly 10 YEARS to develop a new drug--so imagine spending 10 years working on something, and spending millions of dollars on it, then being expected to sell it for $20 a bottle. You'd never make your investment back. In the US drug developers are allowed to keep patents on drugs for no longer than 12 years (7 in most cases). Once that patent runs out, other companies can reproduce the drug, companies that did not have to pay for the research. Those companies can sell the drugs for next to nothing, say $20 a bottle. Therefore, to make their investment back, the original developer has to charge enough for the pill to make their investment back before the patent runs out. That is why they are so expensive. Sorry, a bit of a rant, but it seemed relevant when I started :P

Stifler's - posted on 03/04/2011

15,141

154

604

i agree with heather. babies deserve to be saved rather than people who smoke and drink until their liver or lungs give out then expect and demand transplants and world class treatment by staff and then go on living for years on welfare, not contributing to society anyway.

Sharon - posted on 03/04/2011

11,585

12

1315

I love the story too. Its amazing! and seeing her face, lol I felt guilty for making the post but its a fun question!

[deleted account]

I agree with the idea of what Jodi said : "This is some amazing technology they have here, which, with further work, could become far more affordable and widely used in the futre for various purposes."



The problem is that, as much as we would all love for miracle advanced medicine like this to be widely available and affordable for everyone....it'll never happen. It's the same reason why my husband can't afford to buy Nexium for heartburn even WITH the insurance he pays for every week. It still costs too much. Supply and demand dictates that if we need it and the drug companies have it, they can charge $150 a month (after insurance) for a product it probably only cost them MAYBE $5 to produce.



I LOVE that story though, about the baby being frozen and brought back. Had that cutting edge treatment not been available, these parents would be planning their daughter's funeral instead of planning her physiotherapy appointments. It's really an inspiring story and it says a lot about how far we COULD be if government (in the US at least) and the companies who "own" this technology would release it from such firm grasps. As for the cost in this one particular case? I have a feeling that they must have had private insurance because Medicaid doesn't pay for experimental anything, as far as I know.



The sad thing is that, we, as a human race, already have the science and technology to be MUCH farther than we already are. The general population (and I'm talking world-wide) doesn't know even a fraction of what's been discovered because the people with money, the people who supply the grants that pay for the research to discover such things, they are very picky and unwilling to release it because they would lose money. Call me a conspiracy theorist if you want, but I'm pretty sure that someone has cured cancer too....but imagine how much money would be lost if that info got out? Not gonna happen. Plus, that's a whole other debate lol I'll just close in saying that I'm glad that little girl is alive.



Edit: Sorry! I just re-read the article and realized that this wasn't done in the US so the Medicaid part of my post doesn't apply! Woops!

Sarah - posted on 03/04/2011

5,465

31

344

I do see your point Sharon, I guess I just have a simplistic little view a lot of the time, lol!

I think it's great that this technology is being developed, and I'm glad that my taxes are helping to fund that. I mean, personally, I'd rather the money went on that than on weapons and wars etc.

As for that baby being a non productive human.....well yeah, right now she is, but who knows, she might grow up to be a very productive human life, she might cure cancer or something. I think it's good she'll get the chance to grow up, and help further generations. If that all makes sense! :)

Sharon - posted on 03/04/2011

11,585

12

1315

Oh for sure - i see the implications of the technology.

I just decided to focus on the cost point. Since human life vs. cost would be interesting. especially non productive human life whose only value is intrinsic to the parents.

Sharon - posted on 03/04/2011

11,585

12

1315

But Sarah? As I understand it - what the citizens pay isn't enough to cover what is going out?

Sarah - posted on 03/04/2011

5,465

31

344

It's stories like that one that make me glad we pay taxes to go towards the NHS. :)

Kimberly - posted on 03/04/2011

785

23

317

Its probally not a good idea money wise to spend so much but I think it is very easy to sit here and read this story while my healthy daughter is asleep and debate the cost of it all. If I was the parent of that little baby I would really hope that that saving her life would be weighed up by how much it would cost to do it. I know governments dont have the money like they used to but this is also life saving treatment that could one day save more people. I'm torn between the two but if push came to shove I'd go with saving the baby, maybe they can look at paying something back??

Join Circle of Moms

Sign up for Circle of Moms and be a part of this community! Membership is just one click away.

Join Circle of Moms