I don’t know nearwildheaven enough yet to tell which way s/he falls politically, but if the purpose of this thread was a dig at the lethal defects argument for late-term abortion, I would remind her that the default leftwing position is CHOICE, not abortion. The Congresswoman CHOSE to forgo abortion and therefore I have no problem with this situation (other than to hope the baby pulls through with some hope of a relatively normal life). My only difference with the Congresswoman on this is that I would also consider the choice NOT to continue the pregnancy after finding out the fetus’s condition to be a valid one.
It’s not currently possible outside of experimental work. Hopefully in the near future.
Assuming one of the parents is a match for the kid, they could continue dialysis until the child is old enough/large enough to accept an adult kidney for a third alternative.
I thought the pit/debate would be self-explanatory, but I guess it isn’t, and I PM’d a moderator and requested that the thread be closed.
:rolleyes:
If its not self explanatory, here’s an idea… Explain it?
Let’s not close it. I need closure. What’s the issue?
Yeah come on now, don’t close this thread without explaining what the self-explanatory debate is! That’s just cruel.
What do they mean “born without kidneys?” Are her internal organs otherwise fully functioning but the kidneys just aren’t there? Or is it more complex? And if you compare the DNA of this baby against a healthy one, does this help us to identify the genes responsible for development of kidneys?
Since it’s apparently not self-explanatory, why don’t you explain it? We’re not mind-readers, you know.
If you don’t know what’s wrong, I’M not going to tell you!
flounce
Potter syndrome:
But there’s not just one cause of no amniotic fluid. Many things can cause that, like there being no kidneys at all, or very small kidneys, or there being no ureters, or blocked ureters, or kidneys with cysts all over them that impede their urine making function. So Potter syndrome, because it’s not caused by one thing, is often called Potter Sequence, or Oligohydramnios Sequence. (“Potter” is Edith Potter, who was the first to describe it, in relation to 20 cases where there were indeed no kidneys. Later she expanded the name to apply to other fetuses and babies who had the characteristics, but other causes for their oligohydramnios.)
As far as I know, the “real” problem is thought to be the lack of fluid, whatever the cause, and the other problems stem from that (plus of course whatever post-birth complications their underlying condition will cause) It will be interesting to find out.
Maybe we’ll be able to learn some interesting things about Potter syndrome from this girl, who did develop in fluid, albeit saline instead of amniotic fluid. Does she have the facial and limb deformities? Will her lungs be able to handle air breathing on her own? Or are those deformities in fact part and parcel of a larger problem, not caused by the oligohydramnios as the theory goes? Lots of questions could be answered, as this is the first test of a “classic” Potter sequence to be, only the fetus had fluid. I can see why her doctors are excited and will want to share their findings in medical journals. Still doesn’t really make it any of our business in the newspapers.
All the procedures are going to be expensive. When she reaches the lifetime coverage amount, it’s going to get rough. Well it’s a good thing the PPACA lifted the maximum coverage limitation. Or did she vote to repeal PPACA 33 (or is it 37?) times?
Best of luck to the child though. Go science and medicine!
I guess the debate on THIS board is that the Congresswoman clearly does not exist. I mean, there’s no such thing as a Republican that actually lives by their ideals and would refuse to have an abortion, right?
Maybe she enjoyed government Heath care, but votes to keep it from the rest of us?
Well then, that WOULD be consistent with Republican values, now wouldn’t it?
Do you need new glasses or something? Nobody’s said anything like that. In fact, I posted that I was fine with her making the CHOICE not to abort, a choice she and her party want to refuse to other women.
I really want to know what the debate was supposed to be.
Apparently we’re all stupid for not getting it.
This.
Maybe if she wasn’t a congresscritter with an absolutely killer good medical insurance program it might be of interest, as in how can she afford to keep the kid alive … but along with debates on someones gayness or not [if they aren’t going to sleep with me, I don’t care if they are gay or not], the only thing of interest is that I didn’t think that it was possible to keep such a case alive [and possible future quality of life and possible brain damage from accumulated toxins in the bloodstream]
I guess we could debate whether the OP knows what a debate is. Incidentally, as a Congenitally-Defective-American ™*, I am much closer to this story than any of you and you can all suck it.
*I have an extra bone in each foot called an accessory navicular. My right foot got really sore one time after I walked a long way. I’m thinking of starting a charity dedicated to eradicating this scourge on humanity. I mean, I limped for a good ten minutes.