Wednesday, April 02, 2008

Saving Lives Just for Future Problems?

Yes I have had too much time on my hands this morning.... I need something to keep me awake at the moment. And I hadn't updated in a while and kept seeing news articles that I wanted to comment on. This will likely be my last update for today.... and next time it might actually be on my own life and what's going on there.

Back in the 1970s when I was born it was abnormal for babies born as prematurely as I was to live. I was 9 weeks early. I was born with respiratory distress and severely underweight. But spent enough time in an incubator to survive. I'm resilient, what can I say. Kind of like cockroaches here. But any ways.

There has now been a long term study that looked at premature babies born from 1967 to 1988 compared to full-term births. Preemies tend to have higher death rates in childhood, and are more likely to be childless. While the overall risk was low children who were born 5-9 weeks early showed a doubled risk of death from ages 1-5 compared to those born at full-term. Boys were even more likely to die then girls. Prematurity was also linked to lower education. The question asked by the study leader is "Are we improving their survival at the expense of significant problems down the road?"

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

So he, scientist guy, figures they should have just offed you for popping out early?

Fallen said...

No... just somewhat questioning all the life saving advances and what I didn't mention is that premature births are on the rise largely due to fertility treatments, such as in vitro fertilization.

Counter


View My Stats