Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

lapislzi

(5,762 posts)
24. Yes. And no.
Tue Apr 10, 2012, 01:12 PM
Apr 2012

My friend's twins were born at 22 weeks gestation. The neonatologists gave them close to a zero chance of survival.

My friend is also a multimillionaire hedge fund manager. He and his wife threw literally millions of dollars at the hospital(s) and doctors, flying people in from all over, trying experimental therapies and doing every possible thing a human could do to save these tiny lives. I cannot begin to imagine the what the bills looked like, or the anguish of the parents.

The twins remained in the hospital for several months, probably close to a year. Now they are four and appear to be relatively free of developmental disorders.

I am not a hedge fund manager. Had I given birth at 22 weeks, my baby would be made comfortable and probably live a few hours or days.

All that being said, I do commend my friend for becoming a major donor/force in the March of Dimes.

But it gives me pause. It gives me pause.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

That sounds pretty extraordinary Proud Liberal Dem Apr 2012 #1
The earliest a baby has been born and survived was at 21 weeks and 6 days. So maybe your friend Brickbat Apr 2012 #2
And even then, it's 5.1 months. 2ndAmForComputers Apr 2012 #7
21 weeks 6 days is over 5 mos. Bluerthanblue Apr 2012 #8
Did her husband come back from overseas deployment 6 months before she got pregnant? tjwash Apr 2012 #3
Bingo crazylikafox Apr 2012 #34
You know it! Tom Ripley Apr 2012 #35
Sounds like anti-choicer, forced birther bullshit. Hepburn Apr 2012 #4
I would think it's BS too... TroglodyteScholar Apr 2012 #5
sombody is lying Bluerthanblue Apr 2012 #6
I think someone is lying AND someone is misinformed. Mariana Apr 2012 #15
It's possible. What's the gestation period for a cat? DisgustipatedinCA Apr 2012 #9
63 days on avg mrs_p Apr 2012 #25
And I know a Republican madamesilverspurs Apr 2012 #10
People enjoy lying cthulu2016 Apr 2012 #11
The lungs are non-functional at 4 months. RC Apr 2012 #12
HA! Get his reply: 2ndAmForComputers Apr 2012 #13
so he's in Germany? Bluerthanblue Apr 2012 #17
Nowhere NEAR it! 2ndAmForComputers Apr 2012 #30
Why would she have delivery at 4 months? JohnnyRingo Apr 2012 #14
Lungs don't develop until the 7th month BlueToTheBone Apr 2012 #16
They do, though Yo_Mama Apr 2012 #27
This message was self-deleted by its author Tesha Apr 2012 #18
Yah, it's bullshit. Ask that person for the name of the woman who had a MineralMan Apr 2012 #19
They are lying.... ingac70 Apr 2012 #20
If true, it would have made the news broadcasts. Probably on a national level. arbusto_baboso Apr 2012 #21
She is either, mistaken, misled, or a liar Marrah_G Apr 2012 #22
There are 20-21 week survivals Yo_Mama Apr 2012 #23
Yes. And no. lapislzi Apr 2012 #24
trying to debate someone of subnormal intelligence is a waste of time pitohui Apr 2012 #26
What was the medical bill in order to do this? benld74 Apr 2012 #28
Repubs in AZ are trying to push that pregnancy dates begin with last menstrual period ... IggleDoer Apr 2012 #29
Unless science has found a way to put the baby in a jar until it matures to a Cleita Apr 2012 #31
Sometimes it's better to Google ... GeorgeGist Apr 2012 #32
It's bullshit. That's 5.1 months, it's a single case and it happened in Germany. 2ndAmForComputers Apr 2012 #36
They are wrong. No baby has ever survived being born at 4 months (18 weeks) LeftishBrit Apr 2012 #33
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»An anti-choicer just told...»Reply #24