In Many Hospitals a Nonscientific Assessment of Fetal ‘Viability’ is Used to Withhold Critical Care

In many hospitals and medical facilities today, a nonscientific assessment of fetal “viability” is used to withhold critical care. There are hospitals and practitioners across the country who lack the basic willingness to intervene with lifesaving medical technology to help extremely preterm newborns and those diagnosed with disabilities. The grounds for this lack of intervention are not medical or scientific in nature.

Instead, they are rooted in the pervasive cultural view that fails to recognize the inherent dignity of these children or that they deserve the effort and resources it takes to treat them. In these cases, determinations about “viability” and recommended treatment options are based more on this discriminatory view of vulnerable patients than the medical research indicating intervention is appropriate.

Neonatal Viability has Undergone a Profound Transformation

Over the past 70 years, neonatal viability has undergone a profound transformation, marked by increasingly earlier ages of survivability. All of this is thanks to the incredible advancements in pre- and post-natal care.

From the widespread use of surfactant therapy to improved ventilators and respiratory management, infection-prevention strategies, and enhanced nutritional support, these interventions not only mitigate the immediate challenges associated with preterm birth but also lay the foundation for long-term health and development.

Additional research has led to the use of antenatal steroids (ANS), which, when given to the mother before birth, reduce the risk of infant death and decrease potential health complications for the child later in life. ANS have also been shown to improve survival and reduce long-term complications in even premature infants at the edge of viability when given to mothers at risk for delivery as early as 21 weeks pregnant.

Hospitals Fail to Recommend Life-Affirming Prenatal Options

Despite these findings, many hospitals and practitioners still fail to recommend these options to parents facing threatened delivery of children at the edge of viability or preterm children with chromosomal defects. This reluctance is driven by the false assumption that women who use ANS will deliver babies with long-term disabilities, including profound neurological complications, and that these treatments are financially costly for families and the health-care system. However, data reveal that when born at an institution that consistently intervenes, 64 percent of children born between 22 and 23 weeks’ gestation whose mothers took ANS before birth had no or minimal neurological symptoms at 18–22 months of life.

While no one can guarantee even a term baby’s outcome, presuming overwhelming disabilities is not only inconsistent with the data but also discriminatory against children with disabilities or chromosomal anomalies who deserve equal access to the best care available.

Unfortunately, pro-abortion groups such as the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) who champion terminating babies at any gestational age do not encourage the use of antenatal steroids at the edge of viability as a standard of care. This group has simultaneously suppressed any dialogue or research that doesn’t support this agenda. For example, last year, it banned a group of pro-life physicians from its annual education conference simply because their pro-life views failed to “align” with the ACOG’s pro-abortion agenda.

Regrettably, many doctors rely on organizations such as the ACOG for direction. When doctors and organizations place cultural trends above data-driven medical treatment, dignity of life is compromised. The result is that parents are either flat out denied medical care or made to feel guilty for wanting lifesaving options. This lack of transparency in resuscitation policies prevents truly informed consent and sound medical decision-making, perpetuating inequalities in access to lifesaving interventions and discrimination against those with disabilities.

Life-Affirming Prenatal Care Saves Lives

I have experienced firsthand what is possible when we are willing to give every child an equal chance at life. My wife’s water broke at 26 weeks’ gestation, and we pursued life-affirming prenatal and antenatal care that included prenatal steroids. With the life-affirming maternal fetal medical care and the support and prayers of our health-sharing community, Solidarity HealthShare, we spent the next six weeks in the hospital. My wife eventually delivered our son through an emergency C-section at 32 weeks’ gestation. He spent the following three weeks in the NICU before coming home. Today, he is two and a half years old, completely healthy and a tremendous gift to our family. We could not have made it through were it not for the support of the Solidarity community and the peace of mind we had knowing our extensive medical bills would be negotiated to a fair and reasonable price and then shared by Solidarity’s members. Our son’s story could be the story of so many other children if they are given the chance.

All babies deserve equal access to the available medical resources along with our best efforts at saving them. A pro-abortion agenda which has long infected the culture should never trump the latest and best medical research and technology or be allowed to determine who should receive care.

By Dr. John Oertle
June 16, 2024

Read the full article from Dr. Oertle originally posted in the National Review here