Conjoined twins, 2 heads, 1 body

[Nebbiolo]

The below sounds horrendous but the catholic mother is insisting on going through with the pregnancy because her two headed, one bodied baby/babies is/are a "gift from God". Personally I think her decision is awful and would even contemplate forced abortion based on the fact that this child/children can have zero quality of life. Thoughts?

A woman pregnant with a rare form of conjoined twins plans to press ahead with the pregnancy.
Leading experts said the twins' chances of survival are exceedingly slim at best and advised termination.
But mother-to-be Lisa Chamberlain is reported to be a staunch Catholic who is opposed to abortion.
The 25-year-old from Portsmouth had a scan last week which showed her embryo had two heads and one body - making them dicephalus twins.
But she decided against this after talking over the matter with partner Mike Pedace, 32.

Some might think my twins are strange, but to me they're just special

Ms Chamberlain

Ms Chamberlain told the Sun: "To me, my twins are a gift from God and we're determined to give them a chance of life."
The twins were diagnosed after the former RSPCA worker was taken into the city's St Mary's Hospital on Wednesday with back pain. She had become pregnant in December.
The Sun reports that after the scan results appeared, Ms Chamberlain said doctors and nurses "kept asking each other if they were babies who were close together - or 'something else'.
"Then the emergency obstetrician was called and he took over. He said my babies only had one body and were joined very high up," she told the paper.
She added: "Some might think my twins are strange, but to me they're just special. Everything happens for a reason. Mike and I have spent over seven years trying to have children and we might not get another go."

CONJOINED TWINS
Conjoined twins are extremely rare, occurring in as few as one in every 200,000 births
They are created just a few days after they are conceived - most likely by the incomplete splitting of the fertilised egg
Most are stillborn, and a proportion of those who are born alive do not survive long afterwards

Experts believe the babies have a one in five chance of survival.
Britain's foremost expert on conjoined twins, Professor Lewis Spitz, told the Sun: "There would be a greater risk of infection - and you'd have two heads controlling one side of the body's nervous impulses. I really can't see them surviving."
Lisa and Mike hope their babies will follow the example of US Siamese twins Abigail and Brittany Hensel. They were born in March 1990 with shared organs below the navel and are still alive.
But the last conjoined twins born in the UK died within a few weeks of each other late last year.
Faith and Hope Williams were born on 26 November and were joined from the breastbone to the top of the navel with a shared liver but separate hearts. Hope died following surgery to separate them at the beginning of December, and Faith succumbing nearly a month later.
The St Mary's Hospital has declined to comment, citing patient confidentiality.

 

[Desaparecido]

It's her choice and, I don't think it's a clear cut thing one way or the other. Surely you don't mean force her to have an abortion?

 

[Nebbiolo]

It's her choice and, I don't think it's a clear cut thing one way or the other. Surely you don't mean force her to have an abortion?

Yes, on the basis that she isn't what is important here. The twins deserve first consideration. They will either die before or just after birth (80% chance) or will live a dreadful, short life. Even if science could somehow give life to them until adulthood (I think one set of dicephalus twins has reached that stage), the quality of life for two heads stuck on one body is appalling. Basically, both children share one body, but both can control that same body. Imagine someone else controlling your nervous impulses?

The mother thinks that she is obeying god's will by keeping the babies. I'm afraid that she is grossly mistaken. If the mother knew that god had no hand in this pregnancy, no doubt her opinion would be very different. Why should two creatures suffer because of their mother's untrue belief system?

 

[Desaparecido]

Eugenics just isn't my bag, baby.

 

[Nebbiolo]

Eugenics just isn't my bag, baby.

Eugenics is really the study of hereditary improvement of the human race by controlled selective breeding. This is about whether a woman has the right to put human life through immense pain and suffering. I'm not talking about improving human stock, just about avoiding suffering to sentient creatures. So please don't throw the "eugenics" label at me without qualifying exactly what you mean, since the asscciation with it tends to be a negative one (i.e. Nazi research).

 

[Robin Sisland]

Her decision and hers only, irrespective of her religious beliefs.

The twins themselves might only have a small chance of survival and what life they have might not be what we would want to experience but who can say definitely that they won't be able to enjoy it or to achieve something worthwhile. Think of Stephen Hawking.

Does anyone else remember these Iranian cojoined twins who died while being separated? The courage and dignity with which they conducted themselves in interviews in the days before what they knew would almost certainly be a death sentence was quite incredible. They were 29 when they died and had both been through university and graduated with law degrees. Despite the difficulties they faced I don't recall them once wishing that they had never been born.

 

[Seamus Colemole]

This is about whether a woman has the right to put human life through immense pain and suffering. (i.e. Nazi research).

I don't think you can really bring up whether she has the right to do that whilst earlier on suggesting ignoring her rights (and those of her unborn babies) and forcing her to have an abortion.

Although i don't agree with her beliefs and reasoning for going ahead with the birth its the parents choice and theirs only. And as heartbreaking as it is that her children will more than likely suffer during any life they have that should be blamed on nature and nature only.

Very difficult decisionfor anybody to have to make and they shouldn't be criticised for their choice.

Just hope thetwins do beat the odds and survive and live as good a life as possible.

 

[toffeestillidie]

normally nebbiola i'm on the side of science versus fundementalist catholicism, but here i sort of take a different stance

a mother's love is a funny thing, if the baby(s) do(es) survive, the two or three days she gets to spend with them may mean the world to her, to remove emotion from the equation is simply inhuman, there are some times where the feelings that human's don't fully understand take precedence over science

i absolutely believe she has the right to abort the baby, but think about the emotional toll it would take to force a woman to abort her twin babies. i'm really sorry but i can't say i agree with you u on this

 

[Nebbiolo]

Seems most, with the exception of Robin, focus on the rights of the mother. I see it from a different perspective. And Robin, these are a special kind of conjoined twins. We're talking about about 2 heads stuck on one body. Neither twin has claim to his or her own body. Either twin could control the other's bodily movements. To the casual viewer, the twins will look not like conjoined twins, but a single person with 2 heads. The prognosis is very, very poor indeed.

 

[Robin Sisland]

Seems most, with the exception of Robin, focus on the rights of the mother. I see it from a different perspective. And Robin, these are a special kind of conjoined twins. We're talking about about 2 heads stuck on one body. Neither twin has claim to his or her own body. Either twin could control the other's bodily movements. To the casual viewer, the twins will look not like conjoined twins, but a single person with 2 heads. The prognosis is very, very poor indeed.

I read the article and your posts and realise that the chances are not good.
My points were firstly that whatever her religious beliefs it has to be the mother's decision, and that secondly despite the poor prognosis there's always the chance that they can enjoy some kind of life.

Hawking probably isn't the best example as he wasnt born with his condition and it is progressive, but it is true that he has achieved things which most of us (me included) can't even understand let alone aspire to, despite being unable to do anything physically at all for the past 30 years.
For me the bottom line is that rather than some people being "disabled" , it's the rest of us that are temporarily abled. We're all born completely unaware of our surroundings and unable to much beyond gurgling and sh*tting and the longer we live the greater the chance we wind up in the same condition again.

 

[Nebbiolo]

I read the article and your posts and realise that the chances are not good.
My points were firstly that whatever her religious beliefs it has to be the mother's decision, and that secondly despite the poor prognosis there's always the chance that they can enjoy some kind of life.

It should be the woman's decision merely because she is a potential mum? Are you saying all other considerations are secondary to that fact? If the children had only a one in a million chance of survival past, say, six months, and would die in painful manner, would that change your mind? Would the view that it is inhumane to allow children to be born under these circumstances not trump her view that these children are a gift from god and, therefore, to be brought into this world? What if the woman wasn't a believer in god, but instead subscribed to a view that fairies impregnated her because her new-born was to be the fairy King and Queen? If she said the children are a gift from the fairies would we not question her powers of rational thought? Why credit her with the ability to properly rationalise when it seems clear that her mind is completely clouded? Ultimately, her state of mind will be responsible for much future suffering. Why is it wrong to protect an abstract right of a fetus to be aborted on the basis that being born would have a catastrophic effect on its physical and psychological well-being?

 

[Robin Sisland]

It should be the woman's decision merely because she is a potential mum? Are you saying all other considerations are secondary to that fact? If the children had only a one in a million chance of survival past, say, six months, and would die in painful manner, would that change your mind? Would the view that it is inhumane to allow children to be born under these circumstances not trump her view that these children are a gift from god and, therefore, to be brought into this world? What if the woman wasn't a believer in god, but instead subscribed to a view that fairies impregnated her because her new-born was to be the fairy King and Queen? If she said the children are a gift from the fairies would we not question her powers of rational thought? Why credit her with the ability to properly rationalise when it seems clear that her mind is completely clouded? Ultimately, her state of mind will be responsible for much future suffering. Why is it wrong to protect an abstract right of a fetus to be aborted on the basis that being born would have a catastrophic effect on its physical and psychological well-being?

It's her body. It's her decision and hers alone as to whether she wants to continue the pregnancy to term and to care for the baby(s) irrespective of any religious beliefs she may or may not have.

 

[Nebbiolo]

It's her body. It's her decision and hers alone as to whether she wants to continue the pregnancy to term and to care for the baby(s) irrespective of any religious beliefs she may or may not have.

The right to make a bad decision V. the right to protect the unborn from being born into a life of suffering.

I find it really hard that the former can trump the latter.

 

[Robin Sisland]

That's the legal position in the Uk and as far as I know in most if not all other countries.
It's difficult to argue in favour of changing the law because of the impossibility of defining what conditions or what degree of certain conditions should warrant enforced termination over and above the wishes of the mother,.

'Quality of life' is totally subjective and impossible to quantify even between those of us alive and capable of conducting a debate. Trying to quantify the 'anticipated quailty of life' of someone not born yet is a non starter.

There have been cases where women have opted to continue with pregnancies even knowing that it would cause their own deaths. I find that difficult to understand personally but as suicide itself isn't a crime it's difficult to argue that they should be forced to terminate and live.

If it was me or my partner who was about to give birth to cojoined twins I think I'd opt for termination*. But that's easy to say sitting here, and I know that if I really was faced with the decision I might find it more difficult.

As for this lady, well I think her decision is a very brave one and I hope its not one she lives to regret.

* just realised I've been using the word termination. I'm not anti-abortion per se but it does worry me that we can slip into using terms like this to cover up the fact that what we mean is "killing".

 

[Nebbiolo]

That's the legal position in the Uk and as far as I know in most if not all other countries.
It's difficult to argue in favour of changing the law because of the impossibility of defining what conditions or what degree of certain conditions should warrant enforced termination over and above the wishes of the mother,.

That would be those conditions in which potential life would embark on a life of pain beyond that which it is possible to endure; that is, they would be unable to have a reasonable quality of life.

'Quality of life' is totally subjective and impossible to quantify even between those of us alive and capable of conducting a debate. Trying to quantify the 'anticipated quality of life' of someone not born yet is a non starter.

I can't really agree with that statement. We can judge the potential quality of life of the unborn by matching their potential in the world against real live cases. I don't see how that is in any way "subjective and [un]quantifiable".

There have been cases where women have opted to continue with pregnancies even knowing that it would cause their own deaths. I find that difficult to understand personally but as suicide itself isn't a crime it's difficult to argue that they should be forced to terminate and live.

I think suicide is a crime in the UK. But maybe I'm wrong on that. Perhaps it is just "assisted suicide" that is still illegal. Anyway, what you go onto say above is a different issue. The woman in this case is harming herself, not her potential children. The opposite is true in the case we have been discussing. She is, effectively, causing harm to others. She fails, in my view, the following liberal principle: "that the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others."

If it was me or my partner who was about to give birth to cojoined twins I think I'd opt for termination*. But that's easy to say sitting here, and I know that if I really was faced with the decision I might find it more difficult.

On the grounds that any termination is bound to be heart rendering, I would agree with you. But I believe you, like the majority of people, would do what is ultimately correct, which is end the pregnancy.

As for this lady, well I think her decision is a very brave one and I hope its not one she lives to regret.

Perhaps "brave" is an adjective that I would use just prior to "foolish". And whether she regrets or not is not the point. The first priority in my view is the children. Will they regret being born? I think that perhaps, if they survive, they most certainly will.

* just realised I've been using the word termination. I'm not anti-abortion per se but it does worry me that we can slip into using terms like this to cover up the fact that what we mean is "killing".

I think here it depends on when an abortion is conducted. Surely, if it is at 22 weeks (the legal limit in the UK I believe) we are talking about "killing". It is not altogether clear to me that at, say, 8 weeks we can use the same term. Here, I think "termination" is more apt.