posted on September 6, 2000 09:50:50 PM new
I read in todays paper about siamese twins, joined at the tummy area (I think). They are sisters...and one is "normal", but the other is dependant on the "normal" sisters organs to survive and is also mentally not "normal". The clencher is, if they dont separate them, BOTH will die. If they do separate them, one will live. The parents choose to "let God decide" and leave it as it is. There is some flak about the pros and cons of separation, no separation, judging which one has the "right" to live over the other one. I would hate to be in this situation. How utterly, unbelievably sad this situation is.
posted on September 6, 2000 10:27:12 PM new
Not to sound heartless, but from your description it is pretty obvious which one will survive separation in the long run.
posted on September 6, 2000 10:56:47 PM new
What a sad situation. When the parents say that they are letting God decide and leaving it as it is - does that mean that they're saying they don't want an operation? I can't imagine the pain of having to be the one making that decision.
posted on September 7, 2000 12:39:25 AM new
I wonder what the emotional effect of knowing your sister had to die for you and your parents suffered would be?
posted on September 7, 2000 03:53:23 AM new
There was a case like this a few years ago. They went ahead with the seperation, and one of the twins didn't survive, which the doctors knew would happen.
The media stepped way back and there was little if any information after the operation.
I'm not sure which would be worse, losing both babies, or making the choice and living with it. Either way you are "making a choice", one way both will die, one way one will live.
I couldn't find fault with the parents for going ahead with the operation if they choose to, but I'm not sure I like the "do nothing" choice.
posted on September 7, 2000 07:08:05 AM new
How sad.
Did these people seek the counsel of their minister/ rabbi/ swami etc. before making that decision?
Not trying to be smart or anything, but didn't God already decide? Isn't this similar to the guy who is drowning and turns down a rescue boat because he puts his faith in God, ignoring that the boat was sent by God?
James.
posted on September 7, 2000 07:21:28 AM new
You're right, Parny. It is purely based on what I read in the opening post. In truth, this situation is probably much, much more complex. My heart breaks for anyone who has to make choices about their children's lives.
posted on September 7, 2000 07:26:58 AM new
According to the article, the doctors have approached the courts, to have THEM force the parents to allow the surgery. If I can find the paper, I will type the whole column...but I read them, then scrunch it up for packing and I had a sale end yesterday. My luck, the paper was on top of the "to be scrunched" pile and its already been packed. But I will look and if not, will post it here.
posted on September 7, 2000 07:29:56 AM new
No need to type it. Which paper was it and what day? If there's an online version of the paper, we can just do a cut-n-paste.
posted on September 7, 2000 07:55:11 AM new
Here is a clipping about the girls I spoke of:
In recent years, no set of conjoined twins has captured our attention quite like Angela and Amy Lakeberg. Born in Indiana on June 29, 1993, the babies were joined at the chest and shared a heart and liver. They could not survive together so it was decided to separate them, ultimately sacrificing one for the other. The surgery took place at Children's Hospital In Philadelphia when the girls were seven weeks old. Angela, the stronger of the two, was chosen to be the survivor. Angela never went home. After ten months in the hospital, she died of pneumonia. Her death raised powerful questions about the ethical and economic costs of separation. For some the financial expense was too much (well over a million dollars). For others, it was worth the pain and suffering. The medical community believes that the skills and knowledge acquired from surgeries like the one that separated Angela and Amy would aid in future attempts. The challenge for many observers lies in the conflict between the desire to help medically fragile conjoined twins like Angela and Amy, and the need to justify the emotional and economic costs of their care.
posted on September 7, 2000 08:21:02 AM new
LONDON- Jodie may live, but only if Mary dies. Doctors want to operate, but the parents prefer to trust the will of God. Thus, the fate of Siamese twins from Eastern Europe is in the hands of doctors and appeals court judges, who are struggling with the ethical issues. Speaking of Mary, the twin whose less-developed body depends on her sister for oxygenated blood, Lord Justice Henry Brooke aked Tuesday:"What is this creature in the eyes of the law?" A lawyer appointed to represent Jodie argues that "there are no best interests in preserving what is unfortunately a futile life". Jodie and Mary (not real names), were born Aug 8th at St Marys Hospital i Manchester and are joined at their lower abdomens. Marys brain and body are less developed than Jodies and the Manchester medical team says it is highly probable that if left unspeparated, both twins will die within 6 months as Jodies heart fails. The parents are appealing the Aug 25 decision by a high cout judge to allow surgeosn to separate the twins. The girls fate is in the hands of English law because the parents came here for the birth to give their daughters "the very best chance in the very best place". The appeals court, whish has asked two specialists from London to travel to Manchester to review the case, granted permisssion Tuesday for additional scans if needed. The specialists are to report back at the end of the week. The court, hoever, already is deep into the ethical conundrums of the case. Judith Parker, a barrister appointed to represent Jodies interests, said Jodie would have a good quality of life and the possibility of a normal likfe expectancy if sh were severed from Mary. "Jodie is expected to have a normal brain and is of normal intelligence".
Looks like a lot of "expectations" and "ifs", to me. Still, wouldnt want to have to make this call.
posted on September 7, 2000 08:45:24 AM new
We had a very similar circumstance here in San Diego a few years ago with a set of conjoined twins from Tijuana. The family decided to go ahead with the surgery so one of the daughters could survive. And as far as I know, she is still doing well.
This entire situation is very heartbreaking for all concerned, but if I had to make a choice, I would choose to let at least one survive as normally as possible. Losing one child would be difficult enough, but doing nothing and losing both would be even worse.
People also have to remember that God let modern medicine happen. Although it is not always right, it may still be the best answer for some situations.
posted on September 7, 2000 09:08:48 AM new
The way I took it is that for those who believe in God, theologically speaking God "expects" us to improve the world and make it a better place to live. Modern medicine would serve that purpose, whereas genocide wouldn't.
I think this has to be one of the saddest situations a parent can face. I saw this on the news the other night an thought then how awful it would be to have to make the decision though I know what decision I would make. If I'm not mistaken there is only one heart. I just thank God that I have never been put in that kind of situation. I guess no matter what has happened in all of our lives there is always someone in a worse situation than ourselves.
One thing for sure, I will not judge their decision. They have to do what they feel comfortable doing.
First they have to go though the shock of having conjoined twins, bond with them and then have to make this horrible decision with doctors and courts telling them how to make it. When their decision doesn't match the courts and Doctors it's taken out of their hands. I think all they want to do is love both children as long as possible.
posted on September 7, 2000 10:16:36 AM newI don't understand the logic of this. If God "let" something happen, does that implicitly confer some sort of okay on it? Exactly... I remember hearing a story not too long ago about a township of I believe Christian Scientists who refused medical treatment for a 6 or 7 year old boy with appendicitis, which, due to the fact that the parents opted for prayer instead of medicine, killed the boy after a long agonizing bout of severe pain, while he begged his parents to help him. God's will or manslaughter?
posted on September 7, 2000 10:32:30 AM new
pareau...many people are healthy and alive today because modern medicine has developed vaccines, treatments and surgeries that not only extend life, but the quality of it as well. Is modern medicine perfect? Of course not, and mostly because it involves HUMANS. That is always the mitigating factor in anything. And tragedies (both natural and manmade) have been happening since the beginning of time. If I believe God is responsible for all that is good, then I have to believe he allows for the bad. And in the grand scheme of things, you can't have one without the other.
The reason the doctors want this surgery performed on these girls is because they feel one heart will not be sufficient for both bodies. Although no one can predict the future with 100% certainty, similar past cases have shown this to be true. While the surgery & recuperation carry it's own set of risks, all the circumstances need to be taken into consideration.
And what about those parents that choose to pray over their children's illnesses instead of getting them medical treatment, especially for religious reasons? Are they responsible for their children's deaths when a simple treatment could have cured them?
posted on September 7, 2000 11:44:09 AM new
Whatever decision is made, the parents will have to live with it every day for the rest of their lives. I believe that they should have the power to make this decision, after having all options presented. Unfortunately, in medical ethics, there often are no right answers. I for one do not want doctors and lawyers deciding what is best for me or my family, especially when it involves a possibly experimental procedure.
posted on September 7, 2000 01:37:34 PM new
It *is* a hard, heartbreaking thing to have to decide. BUT in their place, I wouldn't be able to live with myself if I just sat & did nothing ("Leave it in God's hands" ) and by doing so lost *both* children when one life could have been saved.
Pareau: It is doubtful that the girls will survive if left together since there is only one heart between them. In cases like this, the strain on the heart increases as the children grow until it finally gives out.
edited to correct smiley that was foisted on me...
[ edited by bunnicula on Sep 7, 2000 10:01 PM ]
posted on September 7, 2000 02:26:16 PM new
We can think that we know how we would react in a given situation, but until we are actually faced with it, we never really know.
posted on September 7, 2000 08:40:19 PM new
I saw this this morning and thought about thoughout the day. What a terrible decision for these parents to make. My heart goes out to them.
First I would like to say I have no religious convictions so God would not enter into it for me.
If there was one child with a physical and/or mental disability I would love it and do my best to give the best care possible.
However, in this situation because there is only one heart and possibly other single organs to maintain two bodies. Add to that limited mental capacity which may even mean the brain had not developed or there is no brain stem. I would consider this one child with extra appendages. Yes, I know it is a whole body and I'm sure most of you cannot fantham this approach to the subject. But, the body is more like a shell draining from an otherwise healthy child. I would feel like I was killing my baby needlessly if I didn't approve the surgery. That in my mind would be terrible and I couldn't live with that.
posted on September 7, 2000 09:18:06 PM newI do not think the family should be forced to kill one of its children. It's not certain that the girls will die if they remain together. It's not certain that destined survivor will make it if the surgery is performed. The only thing that's certain is that one girl will die if the operation is performed. That is how I see it.
I agree. It may not be the same decision I would make. I don't know what I would decide gratefully I have never had to make that kind of choice but I wouldn't second guess them either as I'm sure this was a choice they did not make lightly.
Oddish~ The Odd One
[ edited by oddish4 on Sep 7, 2000 09:19 PM ]
