Clinic Performs Successful ‘In Utero’ Fetal Surgery Against Spina Bifida

The Cleveland Clinic has announced its first in utero surgery to repair a spina bifida birth defect in a nearly 23-week-old fetus just as other states are passing expansive abortion laws allowing the legal killing of unborn children up to birth.

“A multispecialty team of clinicians performed the surgery in February, and the baby, a girl, was later delivered by caesarean section near full term June 3, making it northern Ohio’s first surgery of its kind,” the clinic reported.

“By successfully repairing the defect before birth, we’re allowing this child to have the best possible outcome and significantly improve her quality of life,” said Dr. Darrell Cass, the lead doctor on the surgical team. “There are different measures of quality in determining success for fetal repairs and in this particular case, all metrics for maximum quality were achieved.”

Spina bifida is a birth defect that affects the lowest part of the spine and occurs when the neural tube fails to fully close, causing the backbone that protects the spinal cord not to form as it should. This often results in damage to the spinal cord and nerves and can even lead to brain damage.

:: Clinic Performs Successful ‘In Utero’ Fetal Surgery Against Spina Bifida ::

So, there are clinics that aren’t against Spina Bifida? Who doesn’t want to be against Spina Bifida?

/dhimmicrat

Mary D., my friend, had surgery when pregnant to repair a defect in Bridget D., her then-unborn daughter. This was in Pensylvania, decades ago.

I don't remember all the details, but the interesting thing about this surgery (aside from the fact that it was wonderfully successful) is that it was paid for by insurance in which Bridget D. was named as the covered dependent and therefore the recipient specified in the insurance contract.

The deal was, the surgery was not to repair a defect in Mary. It is not Mary who had Type (N, whatever) blood which needed to be transfused, it was not Mary who had the specified anatomical defect, it was not any organ of Mary's which was going to be subject to repair surgery: it was Bridget, and Bridget's organs.

So to have the proper billing code and the proper reporting, they had to specify Bridget as the patient receiving the service.

I believe that in law, the patient is defined as the person receiving the medical procedure.

So Bridget was the named, identifiable legally-recognized person, and party to a contract (the insurance agreement), before she was born.

It satisfyingly contradicts the "fetus is not a person" theory.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.