Reflection on NICU issues

Regarding this issue, I have been having a tough time coming to terms with how my faith merges with the issues of the NICU. I know that all life is sacred, and that we were given these life saving technologies, so why not use them to save human lives? But I also know that some infant lives would not be lives unless they were constantly fixed to a machine, so does that mean we should have the right to prolong their life, even when they are painfully degenerating while on machines? I have asked my bible study leader these same questions but unfortunately I have not come to terms with how the church would feel with these issues.

I want to try to go deeper into the economics of it all. On the twitter feed, one student commented that the issue of NICU expense should have no factor into how we address these cases. While it is noble to think that we can just set economics aside and be purely moral creatures, life still goes on while the infant is being treated in the NICU, whether he/she dies or lives. If a couple is using their own money for the procedures of keeping their child alive, they should be able to go as long and far as they want with their child's treatment because they are still somewhat weighing the cost/benefits in their own minds: use up savings because my child has a 60% chance of living, or use up savings because there is a 20% chance of living, the choice is theirs and they can weigh those costs. However, when the parents are having the hospital take up the bill, a parent is solely focused on ensuring their child will live, now that finances is out of the way. Again, though this is ideal, a parent is most likely to say 'yes' to every procedure that will save the infants life, and the hospital in turn must dive into its funds, or be ridiculed for denying life saving services to a patient. This is the dilemma a hospital runs into--where do they draw the line on not allowing a parent to tell them what to use their money on? 

In these situations, I have to think about one of my friend's cousin, who was born at 24 weeks, very unstable at birth, and now miraculously is a healthy baby boy. She told me that the care for her cousin was extremely expensive, and the hospital was going to help out her aunt and uncle with the costs of treatment. I was happy about it. I think this happiness stems from the fact that a child was being saved by our recent technologies, which allow us to rescue a child who would probably have died. I was also thankful for the expertise of the physicians who were caring for him. However, now I have no doubt in my mind that these physicians probably went through a tough time deciding whether to carry on treatment or stop it all-together because the cause was futile. I hope to believe that the doctors weighed the costs in their minds, taking in the financial burden it would cost the hospital, and continued to move forward because they saw that there was still hope that the baby boy would make it out of the hospital with little to no future pain after he left-- the treatment would end at one point. 

I think that is where I would draw some form of a line in determining whether or not treatment in the NICU should be continued. If a child has a chance to live a life that is not hindered by sickness and continued treatments, physicians should use every resource they are given in order to save the child's life. Where that "chance" mathematically lies, and how to calculate that, I am ill-equipped to tell. 

I am glad that there are hospital ethics committees that can be called upon in when dealing with decisions on NICU cases, and the doctor is not the only one deciding these life changing choices.