Talk:Fetal viability

message: Any objection to moving this from Viability (fetal) to Fetal viability ? Polarpanda (talk) 11:21, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Any

message: If something is almost inevitable but doesn't exist yet, should the Law reflect it, or merely/only take into account the current state of affairs?  The existence of the Moon Treaty implies that future abilities 'can be worthy of legal consideration here-and-now.
In the Roe vs Wade article it is indicated that the definition of the third trimester has become associated with viability.  There is an aspect of that definition that I brought up in the Talk page there, and a suggestion was made that it be posted here also.  Modern medical technology has, as stated in the article here, enabled unborn human bodies to be viable considerably earlier than in any of the many millennia during which that technology did not exist.  This implies that as soon as someone successfully develops an artificial womb, even a just-fertilized human ovum could be considered viable.  It therefore may be unwise to define the third trimester in terms of viability.  Not to mention that I'm certain I had encountered a different definition that I don't-recall-precisely just now, and will have to look up --but I think it noted that at the start of the third trimester is when the brain connects to the spinal cord, and thereby becomes able to communicate with the rest of the body.  This definition would be true regardless of available technology, so long as that tech didn't interfere with the natural and typical development process of the fetus.
Meanwhile, there is an aspect of viability to describe that has nothing to do with trimesters, but also involves technology.  We just about have the ability to cut someone's head off and keep both it and the body alive, separately.  There are actual situations I've read about where such a procedure might be the only way to save some person's life ( http://forum.ebaumsworld.com/showthread.php?t=268089&page=2 ).  Barring such an emergency, depending on where the cut is made, it is possible that the body might be viable without significant life support.  Reference: http://www.miketheheadlesschicken.org/ --the head, of course, would never be viable without a great deal of technological life support.  Now, the reason I mention this has to do with a completely different topic of medical research: "regeneration".  There is a large desire to be able to regrow lost limbs and so forth.  Should such a medical breakthrough ever be achieved (and it is beginning to look inevitable: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4888080.stm ), then it should be possible for a detached head to grow a new body, and of course for a headless body to grow a new head.  If we were asked which way to go, to save the life of a "person", which would we recommend?  Is the headless body the person we want to save, or the mind inside the bodiless head?  I think the answer is obvious, that the mind is the person and not the body.  A headless body that grows a new head will become a different person altogether, just like twins are different persons (and clones will be different persons).
Now consider the position of some anti-abortionists, that if a fetus is viable it must be considered to be a person--do you see a problem with that, regarding bodiless-head persons and viability?  It seems to me that one can only conclude that the two ideas of "person" and "viability" don't have to have anything to do with each other!  Indeed, the fact that we use a lot of life-support technology to save people who have extensively damaged bodies (even when we know the bodies cannot naturally grow mostly-healthy again), but we eventually disconnect the brain-dead, only reiterates the idea that the concept of "person" is fundamentally dependent upon a significant amount of working brainpower, regardless of how viable are the attached bodies.  Note that the field of science fiction has extensively discussed the idea of Artificial Intelligent Beings, having person-class brainpower but no biological viability at all.  Ethical discussions already exist about whether or not turning off a genuine AI would be murder, and such discussions are likely to become legally relevant within twenty years, given Moore's Law and associated technological progress in computer science.  All the preceding of which consequently means, for unborn human bodies, that viability should have nothing to do with any aspect of any abortion debate, ever.  Because every fetus, up to and including late term births, has (provably) only animal-level brainpower, not person-level brainpower. V (talk) 20:09, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It might now be noted that if regeneration technology and artificial wombs both exist, then the anti-abortion people could claim that every time anyone bleeds, simply because every lost white blood cell has the potential to, through regeneration, form a complete person, then every such white blood cell must be gathered up and allowed to grow in the artificial wombs.  It is this sort of extreme-ism that can best show just how mistaken is the idea that "viability" should have anything to do with the concept of "person". V (talk) 18:40, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Viability and persons, and the future

message: Moore and Persaud's book defines fetal viability on page 103, but does not make any claim about it being defined as survival without medical intervention.  The relevant sentence is, "Viability is defined as the ability of fetuses to survive in in the extrauterine environment (i.e., after a premature birth)."  Note the full stop:  That's the whole definition.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:45, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source was misrepresented 

message: I propose to move this page from Viability (fetal) to Fetal viability. This just seems like a more natural title to me. Any thoughts? bd2412 T 15:50, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed page move 

message: This article purports to be about foetal or fetal viability. Currently, it opens with the following sentence:
Fetal viability is the ability of a fetus to survive outside the uterus.[1]
Following the wikilink for fetus in the opening sentence, one reads the first sentence on the fetus page which defines the meaning of fetus:
A fetus /ˈfiːtəs/, also spelled foetus, fœtus, faetus, or fætus, is a developing mammal or other viviparous vertebrate after the embryonic stage and before birth.
Thus, we learn in the first sentence of the article that all mammals (and other viviparous vertebrates) produce embryos that then (with the exception of marsupials) become foetuses (aka 'fetuses', North American spelling).
The viability of different species of foetus varies between mammalian species. Humans are just one species of mammal. This article needs therefore to be expanded to describe the foetal viability of foetuses generally, not merely the foetal viability of human foetuses. Currently, it concentrates entirely and exclusively on a description of the viability of the human foetus. This means that the article is unbalanced currently towards an anthropocentric viewpoint viz the Wikipedia template  58.164.138.229 (talk) 06:26, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes.  Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the  link at the top.</br> The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills.  New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to)..  WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:58, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unbalanced towards certain viewpoints 

message: I think there is a mixup between gestational age and time since fertilization in the "Limit of Viability" section.  Regarding the two youngest children to survive premature birth, it says: "Both children were born just under 22 weeks from fertilization, or a few days past the midpoint of an average full-term pregnancy, which equates to 24 weeks of a natural conception."  
Yet, the paragraph directly above suggests that 24 weeks (for natural conception) corresponds to the 50% threshold for survival, thus suggesting that it is not at all unusual for children to survive birth at 24 weeks.  Reading the cited sources, I think that there is a mixup between "gestational age" and "time since fertilization" and that the 22 weeks corresponds to the children's gestational age, not the time since fertilization (which would be ~ 20 weeks).  I am taking out the "which equates ..." sentence, which I think is erroneous.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.49.107.56 (talk) 16:34, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Limit of Viability: Math problem? 

message: I am a third year medical student who recently completed a rotation at a Yale University affiliated hospital, and the standard was to provide NICU care at 22 weeks 0 days. It seems the 24 weeks regularly being mentioned in this article is dated?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.118.188.160 (talk) 18:48, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this information accurate? 

message: I added a section here about the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002.  I specified that its implications for "viability" are not fully explored.  This is still helpful, though, because it provides one place in law where a definition is provided for personal human life. -SocraticOath (talk) 16:10, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  BAIPA Section 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Fetal viability. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071209065838/http://www.canada.com:80/topics/bodyandhealth/story.html?id=db8f33ab-33e9-429f-bedc-b6ca80f61bdc to http://www.canada.com/topics/bodyandhealth/story.html?id=db8f33ab-33e9-429f-bedc-b6ca80f61bdc
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:02, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Fetal viability. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.canada.com/topics/bodyandhealth/story.html?id=db8f33ab-33e9-429f-bedc-b6ca80f61bdc
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090326092358/http://www.baptisthealth.net/vgn/images/portal/cit_449/59/45/73662064factsheetTaylorbaby.pdf to http://www.baptisthealth.net/vgn/images/portal/cit_449/59/45/73662064factsheetTaylorbaby.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:42, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: For some reason, a source from 1973 is being used to suggest that neonatologists in 2018 do not recessitate micro-preemies, very early preemies, or moderately early preemies. Maybe in the 70s this was true, but this is no longer the case. Trust me, I am a registered nurse practitioner specializing in cardiology and neonatology at a children's hospital. We have plenty of preemies who are under 500g in weight, and they generally do well. We certainly provide care for all of our patients no matter how small.72.141.197.112 (talk) 02:19, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Very outdated sources 

message: The article states that the limit of viability has not increased in the developed world since the early 90s. Untrue. A quick google turned up and article showing that is indeed has.https://fn.bmj.com/content/103/3/F208
98.145.90.12 (talk) 00:34, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Limit of Viability 

message: I have reverted the changes by User:Kadysan, who is adding biased and misleading material. First of all, the survival rates which are relevant are those from all births at a specific gestational age (eg. 23 weeks), not the survival rates of those 23 weeks fetuses which are resuscitated. Of course the survival rates of resuscitated newborns are very good, because the doctors will not decide to resuscitate unless there is a good chance of survival. At 22 weeks for example, almost no doctor resuscitates (in many countries it's even illegal to resuscitate this early) so giving the survival rates of resuscitated 22 weeks is irrelevant and misleading. In this respect, this study, which User:Kadysan has repeatedly deleted, states: 
:"While there is no sharp limit of development, gestational age, or weight at which a human fetus automatically becomes viable,[1] a 2013 study found that "While only a small proportion of births occur before 24 completed weeks of gestation (about 1 per 1000), survival is rare and most of them are either fetal deaths or live births followed by a neonatal death." [13]"
User:Kadysan has deleted this repeatedly. The survival rates of resuscitated fetuses can be given, but they have to be put into context, and material relating to overall survival should not be deleted. Then, there is the misrepresentation of sources: what I think was the correct interpretation of a study: "Medical decisions regarding the resuscitation of extremely preterm infants (EPI) deemed to be in the "grey zone" usually take into account weight and gestational age, as well as parental views.[16][17][18][19] One 2018 study showed that there was a significant difference between countries in what was considered to be the "grey zone": the "grey zone" was considered to be 22.0 - 22.6/23 weeks in Sweden, 23.0 – 23.6/24 weeks in the UK, and 24.0-25.6/26 weeks in Netherlands.[16]" was changed by User:Kadysan to: "One study showed that in Sweden, neonatologists generally consider giving medical treatment to babies born at 22 weeks". They do not "generally" consider resuscitating any 22 weeks fetuses, only in certain situations (related to the presentation of the fetus and parental desires).
The table added by User:Kadysan states in regard to fetuses of 21 weeks: "Most physicians do not treat this age group, although there are reports of infants surviving at 21 weeks 4 days or later". Apart from the fact that "most" is a sort of understatement because in fact almost no physician ever does this and in most places it is actually illegal, the claims of the 21 weeks 4 days  survival are to unreliable sources (2 media articles) and one source says that the birth was "21 weeks and six days after conception.", whereas the table is presumed to use the time elapsing from the last menstrual period, as this is the most common medical measurement of pregnancy. 
I have restored the article to the original form. Given the controversial nature of it, major changes should be made only after WP:CONSENSUS.2A02:2F01:58FF:FFFF:0:0:6465:40E7 (talk) 05:13, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: New changes