Heartbeat theory

[TiredOfLife]

I am saying that the 24 week timeframe should be reduced, and I think that the compromise between the existing 24 weeks and conception would be at the point there is a heartbeat. Anyone who has ever seen a sonogram and seen it register a heartbeat would tell you that heartbeat belongs on a life... and one that may need protecting... even if it is from its host that it depends on.

Potential life. There's a whole lot that can happen in the meantime.

 

[sangha]

Understood. But isn't that what an answer does for a question? It serves the purpose of supplying a remedy to an argument.



Also very true. I do realize that just because this is my position doesn't mean it is the correct one. Where Row vs Wade is now may indeed be where things need to be.

Now, as far as a decision being based on what people think is right vs what the supreme court has ruled the government has the right to regulate... I do believe that there is room for improvement on existing laws that govern the rights of women and the rights of the unborn child. I am not asking to overturn, but more precisely define the line that people take up when applying the supreme court decision.

Example: I live in Mississippi... first, don't judge, not everyone is like what you see on TV.... BUT, the republican party did push, and try and pass, a law that define life starting at conception. This would have made abortion, while still legal under certain federal guidelines... a crime committed against the unborn child under state laws.

Thankfully, it failed... but I do think there are ways, even outside of Row vs Wade, to tweak the laws that govern abortion that will protect the rights of women AND the rights of an unborn child. I don't think it has to be one way or the other.

fair enough. I would only add that if you think the law needs tweaking, you should demonstrate a need for tweaking as well as demonstrating how your proposal fulfills the need you're identifying.

 

[sangha]

What about the gentleman that would have been involved? Do your daughters have the right to chose for them? A young man gets your daughter pregnant, she doesn't want the child but he does... is it still personal and private to just her? Just because she is the host/mother, does not rid her of the civil responsibility to others.... that would include a unborn child at some point... i'm just saying that I it makes sense for that line in the sand to be when their is a detectable heartbeat.

If the man wants a child, he has the choice of finding a woman who wants to have a child.

Bearing a child is not a civil responsibility of any woman.

 

[SassySmartie]

I am saying that the 24 week timeframe should be reduced, and I think that the compromise between the existing 24 weeks and conception would be at the point there is a heartbeat. Anyone who has ever seen a sonogram and seen it register a heartbeat would tell you that heartbeat belongs on a life... and one that may need protecting... even if it is from its host that it depends on.

A heartbeat can be detected as early as 6 weeks, which is often BEFORE A WOMAN EVEN KNOWS SHE IS PREGNANT. To which you made some pretty nasty comments about any woman who doesn't know she is pregnant before 8-10 weeks being on drugs. You clearly don't even understand what you are arguing, how biology works or a woman's body, this is just one reason that you have no business suggesting how a woman handles her own body.

 

[minnie616]

So are you saying that as medical technologies advance, and modern medicine is able to sustain the fetus earlier and earlier that the 24 week timeframe should be revisited?

Sure , but the limit of viability ( where at least 50 percent of premies survive although many have major disabilities ) is currently at 24 weeks gestation and has remained unchanged for more than 12 years.

In fact the youngest premie to survive was 21 weeks 5 days gestation and experts highly doubt that any premie under 21 weeks gestation gestation will ever be able to survive because their lungs and their digestive systems are just too under developed and no medical aids known to man can help those systems developed outside the womb.

 

[minnie616]

A heartbeat can be detected as early as 6 weeks, which is often BEFORE A WOMAN EVEN KNOWS SHE IS PREGNANT. To which you made some pretty nasty comments about any woman who doesn't know she is pregnant before 8-10 weeks being on drugs. You clearly don't even understand what you are arguing, how biology works or a woman's body, this is just one reason that you have no business suggesting how a woman handles her own body.

I agree.
Plus when courts and doctors count weeks of pregnancy they refer to gestational weeks.
Gestational weeks are counted from the first day of the last period . So on the day the egg is fertilized the woman is considered to be at the 2 week gestation mark. So she will be 6 weeks gestation mark about the time she would expect to have the next period.

 

[SassySmartie]

Sure , but the limit of viability ( where at least 50 percent of premies survive although many have major disabilities ) is currently at 24 weeks gestation and has remained unchanged for more than 12 years.

In fact the youngest premie to survive was 21 weeks 5 days gestation and experts highly doubt that any premie under 21 weeks gestation gestation will ever be able to survive because their lungs and their digestive systems are just too under developed and no medical aids known to man can help those systems developed outside the womb.

Beyond that, these people who talk about medical advances, don't even consider the astronomical costs of these treatments, the lack of access to many of these services by most people, the number of these preemies who die in the NICU despite all of our medical advances. Furthermore, no one considers the quality of life for these little bitty guys who may be looking forward to a life time of painful surgical procedures. Just because the technology exists to assist in helping the baby finish developing doesn't mean that everyone has access to it, can afford it or will be able to facilitate the follow up treatments necessary. These people who want to cut Medicaid, and want to save government money, what do they think happens when parents cannot work because their preemie baby spends the first 3 months of its life in a hospital ICU, when the follow up visits to surgeons or specialists require parents stay home with the child and visit the doctor frequently?

 

[Scrabaholic]

This really does not need to be complicated.... and this answer should fit most situations...

Once they find a heartbeat then it is time to protect the child. If there is no heartbeat, then it is just organic material that has the hope of being a child.... just a little further along than an unfertilized egg.

OK... so it is hard to get around the whole life begins at conception... but besides that... it holds up nicely.

Why? Having a heartbeat didn't protect that cow in your freezer.

 

[SassySmartie]

Here some numbers about the costs of premature births:

With regards to accessibility, there are currently only 39 verified Level 1 Trauma hospitals for pediatrics in the entire US. [Level 1 trauma designation means they have immediate access to specialized care for most life threatening illnesses/injuries, preemies would get treatment at a Level 1 trauma center].

But the technology that's saving tiny babies in the NICU has not come cheaply. Today, one of every eight American babies is premature. The annual economic cost of prematurity is at least $26.2 billion, according to a 2006 report by the Institute of Medicine.

That conservative estimate includes lifetime indirect costs, such as special education and lost productivity, from four conditions known to affect premature infants at higher rates - cerebral palsy, mental disability, impaired vision and hearing loss.

The calculation does not include indirect costs related to lower intelligence, learning disabilities or behavioral problems, which also occur at higher rates among children who are born months prematurely. Still, the estimate works out to more than $250 billion over a decade - more than $2,000 for every single household.

In the workplace, prematurity affects one in 10 babies covered by employer health plans, driving up birth-associated health care costs to employers by more than 300%, according to the March of Dimes.

The cost of prematurity is borne by everyone in the form of higher insurance premiums - and indirectly in lower wages for people who get health benefits through an employer - and in higher taxes.

In Wisconsin, prematurity cost BadgerCare Plus, the state health plan for families and pregnant women with limited incomes, $81 million in the 2010 fiscal year and more than $300 million over the past four years.

As for the human cost, complications from prematurity accounted for more than half of all infant deaths in Milwaukee, a city with one of the highest infant mortality rates in the nation. The heartache of the families cannot be measured. Empty Cradles | Confronting Our Infant Mortality Crisis - Priceless preemies, costly care

Also:

Preemies are a quickly expanding class of patients in the U.S., Britain, and other advanced nations. And the costs and technical challenges of caring for them are a growing source of controversy. Nearly 13% of all babies in the U.S. are preemies, a 20% increase since 1990. A 2006 report by the National Academy of Sciences found that the 550,000 preemies born each year in the U.S. run up about $26 billion in annual costs, mostly related to care in NICUs. That represents about half of all the money hospitals spend on newborns. But the number, large as it is, may understate the bill. Norman J. Waitzman, a professor of economics at the University of Utah who worked on the National Academy report, says the study considered just the first five years of the preemies' lives. Factor in the cost of treating all of the possible lifelong disabilities and the years of lost productivity for the caregivers, and the real tab may top $50 billion, Waitzman says. Million-Dollar Babies - Businessweek

 

[Stopandthink]

Are you trying to suggest religion isn't at the very heart of the entire abortion/choice debate?

Viability is in no way a ridiculous argument. Makes tons of sense actually.

So since you feel that morality is subjective and only objective scientific fact is allowed in this debate, why wouldn't you favor protection for a new, unique human life as soon as it is able to be scientifically identified as such?

 

[minnie616]

Here some numbers about the costs of premature births:

With regards to accessibility, there are currently only 39 verified Level 1 Trauma hospitals for pediatrics in the entire US. [Level 1 trauma designation means they have immediate access to specialized care for most life threatening illnesses/injuries, preemies would get treatment at a Level 1 trauma center].




Also:

Cost and the high rate of major disabilities are two of the main reasons most hospitals in the USA will not even attempt to save a premie that is less than 23 weeks gestation. They just give give comfort care until they expire naturally.

 

[minnie616]

So since you feel that morality is subjective and only objective scientific fact is allowed in this debate, why wouldn't you favor protection for a new, unique human life as soon as it is able to be scientifically identified as such?

Our definition of a persons life ending is when the brain is dead and the brain waves are flat.
So I think we should define the start of life as when the brain waves start up.
Most scientists agree that fetal consciousness / brain waves begin after 26 weeks gestation.
Until then the brain waves of a fetus are as flat as a person who is brain dead.

 

[Scrabaholic]

I did not state that anyone was flippant, only to rebuke the thought that I was because what I posted was the end result, and still in my opinion, a good compromise on the issue of abortion.

You already have a compromise in your country - states can restrict abortion to only for maternal life/health reasons after viability.

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

Aunt & Tired... it is just an easy way to draw a line in the sand... I can't give you a bunch of statistic, but when you are staring at a sonogram and you see that it has a heartbeat... at that time, then you know it is just a little person and not just fecal matter.

Also, the heartbeat falls around the 6-8 week timeframe... sometime a little earlier, and occasionally a little later... but still any and all rational decisions that need to be made about what needs to be done can surely be done prior to this time.

I'm no doctor, or scientist, or anything like that... just my 2 cents.

You don't have to be a doctor or scientists to know that is an insane expectation. You just have to know a tiny bit about biology. So...

I always find it hilarious when people talk about an embryo having a "heart" at 6 weeks or whatever.

Gigabit, did you know that if someone took a chunk of your own heart -- just a chunk, not even a whole chamber or something -- and hooked it up to some stuff to keep the tissue alive, it would beat? Even though it's nothing but a chunk of muscle tissue? Heart tissue does not need to be part of a functioning heart in order for it to beat. It'll beat no matter how useless it is.

Just because something beats does not make it a heart. An early embryo doesn't even have a developed single chamber.

Also, you know nothing about gestation, in addition to knowing nothing about anatomy. 6 to 8 weeks is not enough time. In fact, it's not really any time at all.

The first 4 weeks of pregnancy are imaginary. We count from the woman's last period so we don't have to guess when she conceived. It's nothing but a way of making things easier for doctors, and having a nice even number like "40 weeks." But guess what? She wasn't even pregnant for the first 4 weeks (conceiving probably around mid-cycle, and implantation occurring -- the official start of pregnancy -- a week or two later).

Ever notice how no one is ever "3 weeks pregnant"? That's because there's no such thing. The first 4 weeks don't exist.

So in reality, "6 weeks" is about "1 or 2 weeks." A woman doesn't just wake up and have a lightbulb moment the second the ZEF attaches. There are usually little or no symptoms at this point. She might not even be late on her period yet (or she might mistake implantation bleeding FOR her period).

In a lot of states, there are waiting periods before they can even book an abortion, and another wait for the appointment. That could easily take her close to or past 8 weeks, even if she gets moving the day of implantation.

That is a totally ridiculous expectation.

And apart from all the biology nonsense going on here, I don't see any reason why any woman should be forced to have her body used and depleted against her will. A ZEF has no "right" to be there.

 

[Stopandthink]

Our definition of a persons life ending is when the brain is dead and the brain waves are flat.
So I think we should define the start of life as when the brain waves start up.
Most scientists agree that fetal consciousness / brain waves begin after 26 weeks gestation.
Until then the brain waves of a fetus are as flat as a person who is brain dead.

The most objective scientific perspective is that a "life" should start when it can be identified as human and living, which is observed at conception. Other qualifiers such as consciousness are ideological.

 

[molten_dragon]

This really does not need to be complicated.... and this answer should fit most situations...

Once they find a heartbeat then it is time to protect the child. If there is no heartbeat, then it is just organic material that has the hope of being a child.... just a little further along than an unfertilized egg.

OK... so it is hard to get around the whole life begins at conception... but besides that... it holds up nicely.

Having a heartbeat as the cutoff is just as arbitrary as anything else, and doesn't really give a woman enough time to find out she's pregnant and make a considered decision about what to do. Might as well just lobby for a complete ban at that point.

 

[TiredOfLife]

The most objective scientific perspective is that a "life" should start when it can be identified as human and living, which is observed at conception. Other qualifiers such as consciousness are ideological.

Show me the :human"?

 

[minnie616]

The most objective scientific perspective is that a "life" should start when it can be identified as human and living, which is observed at conception. Other qualifiers such as consciousness are ideological.

When does life begin?


Does it begin at conception? Does it begin when the first cells begin to divide? Does it begin when it implants ? Does it begin when the heart starts to beat?Does it begin when a fetus becomes consious? Does it begin at Birth? Does it begin when the first breath of air is taken?

Everyone has an opinion but no one really knows.

Current Scientific Views of When Human Life Begins

Current perspectives on when human life begins range from fertilization to gastrulation to birth and even after. Here is a brief examination of each of the major perspectives with arguments for and against each of the positions. Contemporary scientific literature proposes a variety of answers to the question of when human life begins. Here are Four Different Perspectives of when human life begins.

Metabolic View:

The metabolic view takes the stance that a single developmental moment marking the beginning of human life does not exist. Both the sperm and egg cells should individually be considered to be units of life in the same respect as any other single or multicellular organism. Thus, neither the union of two gametes nor any developmental point thereafter should be designated as the beginning of new life.

Genetic View:

The genetic view takes the position that the creation of a genetically unique individual is the moment at which life begins. This event is often described as taking place at fertilization, thus fertilization marks the beginning of human life.

Embryological View:

In contrast to the genetic view, the embryological view states that human life originates not at fertilization but rather at gastrulation. Human embryos are capable of splitting into identical twins as late as 12 days after fertilization resulting in the development of separate individuals with unique personalities and different souls, according to the religious view. Therefore, properties governing individuality are not set until after gastrulation.

Neurological view:

Although most cultures identify the qualities of humanity as different from other living organisms, there is also a universal view that all forms of life on earth are finite. Implicit in the later view is the reality that all life has both a beginning and an end, usually identified as some form of death. The debate surrounding the exact moment marking the beginning of a human life contrasts the certainty and consistency with which the instant of death is described. Contemporary American (and Japanese) society defines death as the loss of the pattern produced by a cerebral electroencephalogram (EEG). If life and death are based upon the same standard of measurement, then the beginning of human life should be recognized as the time when a fetus acquires a recognizable EEG pattern. This acquisition occurs approximately 24- 27 weeks after the conception of the fetus and is the basis for the neurological view of the beginning of human life.

http://biology.franklincollege.edu/Bioweb/Biology/course_p/bioethics/When does human life begin.pdf

 

[gigabitdrew]

A lot of post to read though... and some good thoughts, I just don't believe that the current standard of viability (24 weeks) goes far enough to protect the rights of an unborn child... even though, as so many of you have pointed out, that it could not live on its own. I understand that a fetus at 16 weeks is not considered viable (because it would die on its own)... but at nearly 4 months old, the fetus is a growing baby... deserving of a chance at life, but at the mercy of its host/mother. On a whim, she can make the decision on her own to end its life. This seems wrong.

But, I cannot go so far as to say that life begins at conception and that abortion should be outlawed.... this too seem wrong. So here we are again... folks backing up Roe vs Wade and wanting to keep abortion just like it is (citing viability, we like where it is now)... and others wanting to make it illegal altogether (using imagery of a fetus at 8 weeks which LOOKS like a little baby, and a aborted fetus at 20 weeks that looks like murder.)

I was seeking a compromise, and the point in time that a fetus has a heartbeat is that compromise.

OK, you got me on saying that a woman who doesn't know she's missed her period is just a partying drinking drug user... I don't really mean that... I do feel that a lot of women don't want to bear the responsibility of bearing a child if they accidentally come up pregnant and they find out after my 'heartbeat' timeframe... or any timeframe for that matter... I hear you, and I understand that we have enough unwanted pregnancies as it is... but those are just cop-out excuses. In a civil society, you don't just kill something because you don't want to bear the responsibility for it anymore... a 12 week old fetus has a heartbeat and LOOKS like a baby...



Say what you will... what we have now does not do enough for these children.

The heartbeat theory is a good compromise.

 

[sangha]

A lot of post to read though... and some good thoughts, I just don't believe that the current standard of viability (24 weeks) goes far enough to protect the rights of an unborn child

The unborn have no rights.

 

[kerussll]

Here some numbers about the costs of premature births:

With regards to accessibility, there are currently only 39 verified Level 1 Trauma hospitals for pediatrics in the entire US. [Level 1 trauma designation means they have immediate access to specialized care for most life threatening illnesses/injuries, preemies would get treatment at a Level 1 trauma center].

Umm preemies are not treated at a trauma center. Am I missing something? Do you mean when they come back for complications or something?

 

[minnie616]

A lot of post to read though... and some good thoughts, I just don't believe that the current standard of viability (24 weeks) goes far enough to protect the rights of an unborn child... even though, as so many of you have pointed out, that it could not live on its own. I understand that a fetus at 16 weeks is not considered viable (because it would die on its own)... but at nearly 4 months old, the fetus is a growing baby... deserving of a chance at life, but at the mercy of its host/mother. On a whim, she can make the decision on her own to end its life. This seems wrong....

Abortion on demand is only allowed during the first trimester which is up to 13 gestational weeks.
88 percent of all abortions take place during the first 12 weeks of gestation.

Some genetic / fetal admormalies may be caught as early as 13 weeks gestation but most are not found until 18 to 20 weeks.
Many abnormalities show up during the 18 week gestation ultrasound. They measure the spaces along the spine, for some defects like spina bifitia and Down syndrome. Also an 18 week gestation ultrasound can determine heart problems , brain problems,and other problems such as organs that growing on the outside of the abdomen. If the ultrasound is abnormal more tests such as an amino fluid sample to take a closer genetic look at cells may be taken.

In the USA abortions are allowed up to between 22 and 24 weeks gestation for these fetal abnormalies.
Abortions after 24 weeks gestation are allowed for the extreme cases where the womans life or irreparble damage to a major bodily function will take place or where the fetus will not be viaible. It will be stillborn or would only live a few minutes or hours.

There are only four abortion doctors who perform legal abortions after viability in the USA.
The later the pregnancy the much higher the risk for the woman which is why her life or irreparable damage to a major bodilily function , or a non viaible fetus which risks the woman's life because of a high chance of infection are the extreme cases these doctors perform abortions.

from the following article:

Of the roughly 7 million American pregnancies each year, about 1 million end in abortion.
However, almost all of the procedures are performed early in pregnancy.
According to the Guttmacher Institute, only about 1 percent of abortions are performed after 20 weeks of gestation (a normal pregnancy is 40 weeks), which are those banned by the proposed Texas law.

Why do some women wait so long? The answer is that comprehensive fetal testing, such as anatomical sonograms and ultrasounds of the heart, are typically performed just before 20 weeks of gestation. Such scans are critical for uncovering major birth defects, such as anencephaly (severe brain malformations), major heart defects, missing organs and limbs, and other severe birth defects. Fetal development is a complex process that often goes awry. Roughly 2 percent of all pregnancies are complicated by a major birth defect, and of those about 0.5 percent have a chromosomal defect, such as an extra or missing segment of normal DNA. Birth defects are a leading cause of infant mortality, and in many cases of severe birth defects, no medical treatment can salvage a fetus’s life or result in any measure of normal future health.

I am a pediatric cardiologist and work in a tertiary care center specializing in high-risk pregnancies. When helping families cope with major birth defects, our medical team tries to educate families about the full range of choices available to them, including advanced treatments that can help many major birth defects. But we also are clear about the severe challenges that other fetuses may face as newborns, and the limitations of modern medicine. Many loving families choose to continue their pregnancies, and we do our best to help them in every possible way. But some families faced with severe fetal disorders—severe brain defects, entirely abnormal gut structures, devastating chromosomal problems—choose not to carry to term and request referral to an abortion provider.

It is hard to overstate the heartrending nature of these decisions and the amount of time and effort the care team spends on educating and supporting these families as they make very personal decisions. In our hospital, we have learned that almost no family characteristics predict who may choose termination; these families have origins in all parts of the world and adhere to many different religions.
National data supports this anecdotal observation; for example, 30 percent of women having abortions self-identify as Catholic.

Now consider the numbers: Each year in Texas, about 400,000 babies are born, of whom 16,000 have a birth defect of some type, according to the state health department. ;B]Parsing the types of birth defects, roughly 700 have major brain defects (such anencephaly), and 600 have major chromosomal disorders (such as Patau syndrome), and the rest have a variety of other disorders. (Keep in mind that these are only the babies that were actually born.)[/B]

Over the same one-year period of time in Texas, about 85,000 women have an abortion, of which only about 1,000 are performed after 20 weeks of gestation. It is exceedingly difficult to know precisely why those late mid-term abortions occurred—no one documents exactly why a woman elects one.

But consider the fact that almost all major defects would be detected around 20 weeks and that the defects are much more common than many people realize. In Texas, there are likely thousands each year. Thus, the data are very suggestive that many late mid-term abortions are not performed because a woman is using the procedure for routine birth control. It is likely that many women find that a severe, untreatable birth defect is present that was undetectable until halfway through the pregnancy. Those are the ones who could be henceforth banned by the proposed Texas law, which would require many women who want abortions instead to carry fetuses with severe defects to term.

Finally, consider the rational response of many women. If they cannot rely on routine, insurance-covered testing to assess for birth defects—reliable ultrasound pictures are present and paid by insurance only around 20 weeks of gestation—they may instead seek less reliable ultrasounds earlier in pregnancy, before vital structures are well formed and viewable. A perinatal specialist might tell women that a major defect is possible, but the data would be unclear. What would such a woman do if told there is a strong chance of a major birth defect, and that confirmatory testing reliably can’t be done in time to meet the 20-week deadline to elect termination? It is entirely possible that such a woman might not like the odds and abort a healthy baby.

In the end, restriction on late mid-term abortions may seem motivated by concerns about a healthy fetus; after all, the Texas bill was called the “Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act.” But a closer look strongly suggests that no matter what the legislators do, some fetuses and families will still be faced with a great deal of misery.

Texas abortion ban after 20 weeks: Prenatal testing reveals birth defects then. - Slate Magazine
read more:

 

[gigabitdrew]

The unborn have no rights.

Late term abortions are illegal... so even if an unborn child has no rights, it is still protected in some sense... I was simply stating that protection should be widened to an earlier age.

Sangha, I'm thinking that this is a case of you actually understanding my meaning, but picking at me for the choice of my words.... which is fair, it will help me clarify what I am trying to say.

 

[sangha]

Late term abortions are illegal... so even if an unborn child has no rights, it is still protected in some sense... I was simply stating that protection should be widened to an earlier age.

Sangha, I'm thinking that this is a case of you actually understanding my meaning, but picking at me for the choice of my words.... which is fair, it will help me clarify what I am trying to say.

Nope. You are 100% wrong.

It's not the ZEF that is being protected. It's the govts' interests that are being protected.

 

[SassySmartie]

Umm preemies are not treated at a trauma center. Am I missing something? Do you mean when they come back for complications or something?

Actually, they are. In a pediatric level 1 trauma center, there is access to advanced specialty care around the clock along with 24hr onsite surgeons for the many complications that a preemie might encounter, such as bowel problems, need for ECMO treatment, neurosurgery and other advanced medical care. Especially for those 28 weeks and younger. Trauma designation does not only mean due to a catastrophic traumatic injury, though that is the main reason for a hospital to maintain such a designation.

Level 1 neonatal care (basic)[edit source | editbeta]
Well-newborn nursery: has the capabilities to provide neonatal resuscitation at every delivery, evaluate and provide postnatal care to healthy newborn infants, stabilize and provide care for infants born at 35 to 37 weeks’ gestation who remain physiologically stable stabilize newborn infants who are ill and those born at 35 weeks’ gestation until transfer to a facility that can provide the appropriate level of neonatal care.[22]

Level 2 neonatal care (specialty)[edit source | editbeta]
Special care nursery: level II units are subdivided into 2 categories on the basis of their ability to provide assisted ventilation including continuous positive airway pressure.

Level 2A: Level 2a has the capabilities to resuscitate and stabilize preterm and/or ill infants before transfer to a facility at which newborn intensive care is provided for infants born at 32 weeks’ gestation and weighing 1500 g who have physiologic immaturity such as apnea of prematurity, inability to maintain body temperature, or inability to take oral feedings or who are moderately ill with problems that are anticipated to resolve rapidly and are not anticipated to need subspecialty services on an urgent basis. They also provide care for infants who are convalescing after intensive care

Level 2B: Level 2B has the capabilities of a level IIA nursery and the additional capability to provide mechanical ventilation for brief durations ( 24 hours) or continuous positive airway pressure

NICU: level 3 (advanced specialty)[edit source | editbeta]
Level 3A: Level 3a has the capabilities to provide comprehensive care for infants born at 28 weeks’ gestation and weighing 1000g; to provide sustained life support limited to conventional mechanical ventilation; and to perform minor surgical procedures such as placement of central venous catheter or inguinal hernia repair.

Level 3B: Level 3b has the capabilities to provide comprehensive care for extremely low birth-weight infants (1000g and 28 weeks’ gestation); advanced respiratory support such as high-frequency ventilation and inhaled nitric oxide for as long as required. Also available: prompt and on-site access to a full range of pediatric medical subspecialists; advanced imaging, with interpretation on an urgent basis, including computed tomography; magnetic resonance imaging, and echocardiography; pediatric surgical specialists and pediatric anesthesiologists on site or at a closely related institution to perform major surgery such as ligation of patent ductus arteriosus and repair of abdominal wall defects, necrotizing enterocolitis with bowel perforation, tracheoesophageal fistula and/or esophageal atresia, and myelomeningocele.

Level 3C: Level 3c has the capabilities of a level-IIIB NICU and also is located within an institution that has the capability to provide ECMO and surgical repair of complex congenital cardiac malformations that require cardiopulmonary bypass. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neonatal_intensive_care_unit

I currently work in a pediatric hospital with level 1 trauma designation. Babies in the area are transferred to our NICU every day to deal with the most severe congenital defects. We frequently perform urgent/emergent surgeries on babies in the NICU when they need ECMO treatment, bowel resections, and other serious complications that arise with preemies.

Here's a guide to the top 3 trauma designations, you can note that level 1 offers the most comprehensive care 'round the clock:

Level I[edit source | editbeta]
A Level I Trauma Center provides the highest level of surgical care to trauma patients. Being treated at a Level I Trauma Center increases a seriously injured patient’s chances of survival by an estimated 20 to 25 percent.[11] It has a full range of specialists and equipment available 24 hours a day[12] and admits a minimum required annual volume of severely injured patients. A Level I trauma center is required to have a certain number of surgeons, emergency physicians and anesthesiologists on duty 24 hours a day at the hospital, an education program, and preventive and outreach programs. Key elements include 24-hour in-house coverage by general surgeons and prompt availability of care in varying specialties—such as orthopedic surgery, neurosurgery, plastic surgery (plastic surgeons often take calls for hand injuries), anesthesiology, emergency medicine, radiology, internal medicine, oral and maxillofacial surgery and otolaryngology (trained to treat injuries of the facial skin, muscles, bones), and critical care—which are needed to adequately respond and care for various forms of trauma that a patient may suffer and rehabilitation services. Additionally, a Level I center has a program of research, is a leader in trauma education and injury prevention, and is a referral resource for communities in nearby regions.[13]

Level II[edit source | editbeta]
A Level II trauma center works in collaboration with a Level I center. It provides comprehensive trauma care and supplements the clinical expertise of a Level I institution. It provides 24-hour availability of all essential specialties, personnel, and equipment. Minimum volume requirements may depend on local conditions. These institutions are not required to have an ongoing program of research or a surgical residency program.
Level III[edit source | editbeta]

A Level III trauma center does not have the full availability of specialists, but does have resources for emergency resuscitation, surgery, and intensive care of most trauma patients. A Level III center has transfer agreements with Level I or Level II trauma centers that provide back-up resources for the care of exceptionally severe injuries, Example: Rural or Community hospitals.[13]