CO-JOINED TWINS

[JMH]

My goodness,

I ask:

What kind of society allows these poor children to be born?

What kind of Pshychotic Screw-ball celebrates this type of birth?............the Canadian media.

If there is ever, ever,ever a case for terminating pregnancy at the earliest stage, this is it.

To hell with the system. Lunacy. Stupidity. EGO.

I dont care what happens, those poor kids will be screwed from the get go. The parents will be going out of their minds for years to come. The medical bills will be in the millions...........forever. Who pays for this foolishness?

WE DO.

While our parents are dying and need care, we spend millions on unspeakable breaches of a basic moral code.

The pregnancy should have been terminated and the parents could try again.

Is that cruel? Talk to the kids 20 years from now..........we'll see whats cruel.

[Charles Anthony]

What kind of society allows these poor children to be born?

None.

People allow these poor children to be born. People who are aware that modern medicine is more than just cough syrup and boiling water.

The pregnancy should have been terminated and the parents could try again.

Is that cruel?

If that is the angle you want to take, maybe this can be tossed into one of the multitudes of abortion threads discussed before?

[jbg]

All identical twins are, at some point, conjoined, but the separation occurs in the womb. It all depends what organs the twins are conjoined at.

I do agree that some of the marquis operations we've seen should have been preceded by abortions, but twins conjoined, say, at a finger or even a hand should not be aborted.

[MightyAC]

My goodness,

I ask:

What kind of society allows these poor children to be born?

What kind of Pshychotic Screw-ball celebrates this type of birth?............the Canadian media.

If there is ever, ever,ever a case for terminating pregnancy at the earliest stage, this is it.

To hell with the system. Lunacy. Stupidity. EGO.

I dont care what happens, those poor kids will be screwed from the get go. The parents will be going out of their minds for years to come. The medical bills will be in the millions...........forever. Who pays for this foolishness?

WE DO.

While our parents are dying and need care, we spend millions on unspeakable breaches of a basic moral code.

The pregnancy should have been terminated and the parents could try again.

Is that cruel? Talk to the kids 20 years from now..........we'll see whats cruel.

I'm completely in favour of the CHOICE to have an abortion but this post is absolute lunacy. What are you proposing imposed abortion because some medical cases are expensive?! So do you propose we have economists estimate the costs of children born with illnesses and abnormalities and if the number exceeds a predetermined amount an abortion is ordered. "Sorry ma'am your baby is a freak and too damned expensive please spread your legs so we suck it out."

Maybe your idea should be extended to adults as well. "Sorry Mr. Smith that type of cancer is expensive to treat and is rarely defeated. You now have 10 minutes to say goodbye to your wife before we kill you." We could even extinguish adults with low IQ scores and strengthen the herd...ouch...that one probably hit a little too close to home didn’t it?

[Riverwind]

What kind of society allows these poor children to be born?

A society that provides free no questions asked healthcare service to babies. The parents should have been introduced to the hundreds of people that will go without knee or hip replacements because of the money spent on these aberrations of nature.

We have to be willing to say no. We have to be willing to make cruel choices and tell people that free medical insurance does not cover heroic measures to save babies that have no chance of ever having a normal life.

[jbg]

I'm completely in favour of the CHOICE to have an abortion but this post is absolute lunacy. What are you proposing imposed abortion because some medical cases are expensive?!

I see your point. It is a tough one. The question is, how large a percent of GDP do we allocate to medicine? All of it, potentially?

In other words, there isn't enough money in the world to make the best of medical technology available to all. The earlier we face up to that the better.

[Argus]

I'm completely in favour of the CHOICE to have an abortion but this post is absolute lunacy. What are you proposing imposed abortion because some medical cases are expensive?!

Yes.

Not only will they draw off scarce resources, they will likely never have much of a life worth living. They are conjoined at the brain, and apparently share several lobes. Even if they can be "successfully" separated they will likely lose much brain function. And the cost will be many millions. Such children should be aborted early, along with others who are shown to have major birth defects. They not only have little in the way of life to be lived, and not only are a drain on resources, but they basically destroy the lifes of those who birth and must then care for them. Some of these defects are a curse not only on the child but on the parents - forever.

[scribblet]

What kind of society allows these poor children to be born?

A society that provides free no questions asked healthcare service to babies. The parents should have been introduced to the hundreds of people that will go without knee or hip replacements because of the money spent on these aberrations of nature.

We have to be willing to say no. We have to be willing to make cruel choices and tell people that free medical insurance does not cover heroic measures to save babies that have no chance of ever having a normal life.

I tend to agree.

We cannot force people to have abortions, that is unthinkable. What we can do is make it clear to the parents, that if they choose to go ahead with the birth, the medical procedures for separating them will not be paid for. Either that, or they refuse to perform the operation, at least in this case where they share a brain and there appears to be no hope for much of a life for either one.

[jefferiah]

My goodness,

I ask:

What kind of society allows these poor children to be born?

What kind of Pshychotic Screw-ball celebrates this type of birth?............the Canadian media.

If there is ever, ever,ever a case for terminating pregnancy at the earliest stage, this is it.

To hell with the system. Lunacy. Stupidity. EGO.

I dont care what happens, those poor kids will be screwed from the get go. The parents will be going out of their minds for years to come. The medical bills will be in the millions...........forever. Who pays for this foolishness?

WE DO.

While our parents are dying and need care, we spend millions on unspeakable breaches of a basic moral code.

The pregnancy should have been terminated and the parents could try again.

Is that cruel? Talk to the kids 20 years from now..........we'll see whats cruel.

While our parents are dying and need care, we spend millions........we spend millions on excesses. Ridiculous ones at that. I wont offer my opinion on this specific case since I dont know much about co-joined twins....but as for the millions spent on health care we could afford much more if we did not fund so many special interest groups when they want to have a pride rally complete with expensive meals and etc. In the interest of expensive health care, before saying no to ailing people, we could say no to Adrienne Clarkson when she uses tax money to travel the world with her family. There are countless examples of money being wasted ridiculously. Do we want more money to help the living survive, or do we want more money to help the living conduct a study on "how buying 18th century art makes the buyer feel, what emotions it evokes". Yes, there was a large sum of money donated to the person who felt this research had to be conducted. Cut funding to the arts. I am not against art. Rather I think true art is an entrepreneurial enterprise. So I dont know about this specific case....whether it is cruel to allow them to live or not. But when it comes to the money aspect.......

[margrace]

What kind of society allows these poor children to be born?

A society that provides free no questions asked healthcare service to babies. The parents should have been introduced to the hundreds of people that will go without knee or hip replacements because of the money spent on these aberrations of nature.

We have to be willing to say no. We have to be willing to make cruel choices and tell people that free medical insurance does not cover heroic measures to save babies that have no chance of ever having a normal life.

I tend to agree.

We cannot force people to have abortions, that is unthinkable. What we can do is make it clear to the parents, that if they choose to go ahead with the birth, the medical procedures for separating them will not be paid for. Either that, or they refuse to perform the operation, at least in this case where they share a brain and there appears to be no hope for much of a life for either one.

Well I watched a program of Lou Dobbs and this is exactly what happens in the insurance program in the states, so much money alloted and then a cap. The couple eventually went bankrupt.

[Figleaf]

I'm completely in favour of the CHOICE to have an abortion but this post is absolute lunacy. What are you proposing imposed abortion because some medical cases are expensive?!

Yes.

Not only will they draw off scarce resources, they will likely never have much of a life worth living.

That's the key point in my opinion. We're a rich society and we can afford to spend a lot on saving people's lives. Look at how we pull out the stops if someone is lost in the mountains. But ethics should compell us to ask what we end up saving.

[Ladyjen]

When the first pictures appeared on TV of these little twins, I had to go do some housework as I was so, so, angry that anybody in their right mind would allow this to happen. My heart went out to those babies and I couldn't watch it. How could anybody in their right mind bring children into the world that are doomed to this kind of an existence? What were they thinking? The prognosis right from the beginning was not good. This has never happened in BC before. Was this mother just wrapped up in all the attention to the point that it clouded her judgement?

I don't know about a forced pregancy termination or medical insurance refusing to pay for it as both of these scenarios seem like a slippery slope. I do know that I will not be following this sad story as this rips my heart out and causes me huge bewilderment and frustration.

[Drea]

When the first pictures appeared on TV of these little twins, I had to go do some housework as I was so, so, angry that anybody in their right mind would allow this to happen. My heart went out to those babies and I couldn't watch it. How could anybody in their right mind bring children into the world that are doomed to this kind of an existence? What were they thinking? The prognosis right from the beginning was not good.

So we should have forced her to abort? IMO abortion is a choice. c-h-o-i-c-e. Where would we draw the line? These babies can and will be separated and will more than likely live normal lives. We do have the technology. BTW, have you ever seen those two conjoined twin women on TV? One is in a wheelchair, the other can walk, but they are joined at the head. Why not ask them if they wish they'd been aborted?

This has never happened in BC before. Was this mother just wrapped up in all the attention to the point that it clouded her judgement?

That is why the media is all over it. It's never happened here before. So its new news.

Clouded her judgement? She has to raise these children. She has to explain everything to them as they grow up.... I feel for her.

I don't know about a forced pregancy termination or medical insurance refusing to pay for it as both of these scenarios seem like a slippery slope. I do know that I will not be following this sad story as this rips my heart out and causes me huge bewilderment and frustration.

We pay for fat people's medical care who eat at McDonalds everyday -- their obesity being entirely their own doing. These babies did not ask to be born conjoined.

That being said... I am miffed because here is a single mother of two (already) on welfare, getting pregnant again! Grrrrr. Close your legs woman! Now she is a single mother of four. I am all for forced contraception to stop these single mothers from having more children while they are in the care of the taxpayer.

[gc1765]

A society that provides free no questions asked healthcare service to babies. The parents should have been introduced to the hundreds of people that will go without knee or hip replacements because of the money spent on these aberrations of nature.

We have to be willing to say no. We have to be willing to make cruel choices and tell people that free medical insurance does not cover heroic measures to save babies that have no chance of ever having a normal life.

So, are you saying that they should have been aborted? Just because we as a society don't want to pay to save their lives? If the parents choose to have an abortion, that is one thing, but forcing abortions? Who are we to decide whether their lives are worth living, or if they will have a "normal" life? Since the twins are too young to make that choice, it should be left up to the parents to decide if they believe the lives are worth saving. How can we just say to the parents "sorry, we don't have enough money to keep your kids alive..." If there's not enough money for hip & knee replacements, then we should spend more on healthcare. I may be a financial conservative, but I still believe in spending money on important things like saving lives.

[Riverwind]

So, are you saying that they should have been aborted? Just because we as a society don't want to pay to save their lives? If the parents choose to have an abortion, that is one thing, but forcing abortions?

Where did I say anything about forcing abortions? There is a huge difference between forcing someone to have an abortion and telling them that they are responsible for all medical costs should they choose to carry the baby to term.

If there's not enough money for hip & knee replacements, then we should spend more on healthcare.

Free heathcare is a bottomless pit that will consume all the money we could possibly throw at it. The only way to limit costs it to ration supply. Right now we ration supply by telling people with non-life threating conditions that they have to live in misery for months or years because there is not enough money. I am saying it is time for us to look at rationing healthcare in more sensible ways - refusing to cover the costs of treating babies that have no realististic chance of a normal life is one place where we could start.

I may be a financial conservative, but I still believe in spending money on important things like saving lives.

Do you think medicare should pay for a treatment for cancer that costs millions/per person and only has a 1 in 10 chance of working? Most people would say the costs exceeds the benefits. I am sorry if it upsets your sensibilities but the system is already deciding who should live and who should die based on the costs of treatment. I think it is time we took off the blinders of and had a sensible discussion about what our priorities should be.

[MightyAC]

I agree with GC1765… I would support aborting my own twins conjoined at the head…however the original statement in this thread was

I ask: What kind of society allows these poor children to be born?

implying the abnormal twins shouldn’t be permitted to be born…which is quite a different story.

The cost argument seems irrelevant to me as well. The cost of separating and then caring for the twins pales in comparison to amount spent on fat, lazy bastards and smokers. I am in good shape, I eat well, I don’t smoke, I exercise regularly should I get some money back or preferential medical treatment because I am less of a risk to our system? Of course not… There is no perfect way to provide universal care and then ensure that every gets a fair slice of the pie.

Our system needs to be replaced but with what? The Swiss, Luxembourg and Japanese systems seem to get a lot of praise….maybe we should investigate those.

[gc1765]

Where did I say anything about forcing abortions? There is a huge difference between forcing someone to have an abortion and telling them that they are responsible for all medical costs should they choose to carry the baby to term.

My mistake, my wording was probably misleading. What I meant to say is that you are advocating that we do not spend money on these babies (and therefore presumably they would die), and I think you were at least implying that the parents should have aborted (as opposed to a forced abortion).

Free heathcare is a bottomless pit that will consume all the money we could possibly throw at it. The only way to limit costs it to ration supply. Right now we ration supply by telling people with non-life threating conditions that they have to live in misery for months or years because there is not enough money. I am saying it is time for us to look at rationing healthcare in more sensible ways - refusing to cover the costs of treating babies that have no realististic chance of a normal life is one place where we could start.

Do you think medicare should pay for a treatment for cancer that costs millions/per person and only has a 1 in 10 chance of working? Most people would say the costs exceeds the benefits. I am sorry if it upsets your sensibilities but the system is already deciding who should live and who should die based on the costs of treatment. I think it is time we took off the blinders of and had a sensible discussion about what our priorities should be.

We all must draw the line somewhere. If a treatment is going to cost one trillion dollars to save one life, then unfortunately it's not realistic to save that person's life. But somewhere between one cent and one trillion dollars, we all must draw the line. I think I just happen to draw that line a little higher than you. I would much rather see more money going to healthcare and saving people's lives than some of the places that the money is going to now.

[scribblet]

Margaret Wente has spoken up on this issue and is saying I believe, what a lot of other people are afraid to say. I've posted most of it as you need a log in, she says it well.

or logs go to bugmenot.com

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...=Margaret+Wente

Twin Sides of the coin MARGARET WENTE

-snip-

Nobody dared to ask whether it would have been better for them not to have been born at all. Not in public, anyway. In private, the conversation was different. Ten out of 10 people interviewed for this story said that, if it had happened to them, they would have terminated the pregnancy.

-snip-

This is not a story that should make anyone smile. Instead, it ought to fill us with pity and sorrow.

Print Edition - Section Front

The twins' mother, Felicia Simms, is a 21-year-old single woman on social assistance. She has two other children, ages 4 and 2. She is unable to work, she has said, because she has severe scoliosis -- curvature of the spine -- and a panic disorder. You get the sense that the twins' father (who hasn't spoken to the media) is not ecstatic, but in shock.

Infants such as these would challenge the most resilient family in the world, let alone this one. How do their parents intend to care for them? What will be the impact on their ability to care for the two children they already have? How will they gain access to the highly specialized medical attention the twins will need when they live in Vernon, a town that's hundreds of miles from a major medical centre?

Did anyone suggest to Ms. Simms that, for the sake of her family, proceeding with the pregnancy (she learned of the twins' condition at 20 weeks) might not be such a hot idea?

Instead of being portrayed as feckless (a reasonable interpretation, under the circumstances), Ms. Simms has been depicted as a model of maternal love, courageously prepared to take on whatever fate has in store. Except that she won't have to. That will be up to the state, which will inevitably step in when she can't cope. The state will also pick up the bills. The cost could well be in the millions. (In 2003, doctors in the United States separated Egyptian twins joined at the head, at a cost of about $4.5-million.)

Don't get me wrong. I do not think that anyone in authority had the right to tell Ms. Simms what to do. The choice (if not the consequences) was all hers. And I'm glad that heroic medicine is available to all -- or, at any rate, to those with an exotic, dramatic and life-threatening condition that will provide amazing visuals for the nightly news.

-snip-

I don't begrudge the expense these poor infants will incur. And I know it's not nice to apply a cost-benefit analysis to human life. But we need to face the fact that not all babies are worth saving, even if we could afford to do it. Developed nations around the world are wrestling with the ethics and stunningly high costs of trying to save seriously premature infants, who (if they survive) have a high chance of developing severe mental or physical handicaps. They're God's children, too. But, sometimes, it's more merciful to let nature take its course.

[jbg]

Frankly, what is anyone who is 21 and in that kind of condition doing having a third pregnancy in the first place?

[Drea]

Frankly, what is anyone who is 21 and in that kind of condition doing having a third pregnancy in the first place?

Exactly jbg. What is a single mother of 2 doing having another pregnancy? IMO if a woman is on social assistance, she should be on contraceptives.

Funny, her back pain didn't stop her from having a romp in the hay but she "can't work". Pffft. My sister has scoliosis (curvature of the spine) and she works. She raised 6 children, btw.

[betsy]

Frankly, what is anyone who is 21 and in that kind of condition doing having a third pregnancy in the first place?

Exactly jbg. What is a single mother of 2 doing having another pregnancy? IMO if a woman is on social assistance, she should be on contraceptives.

Funny, her back pain didn't stop her from having a romp in the hay but she "can't work". Pffft. My sister has scoliosis (curvature of the spine) and she works. She raised 6 children, btw.

Yep. Strange world. Someone who's already on assistance should at least try to be less of a burden to the society already supporting them. Who helps take care of these children? Do we provide her with a nanny?

[geoffrey]

I may be a financial conservative, but I still believe in spending money on important things like saving lives.

Do you think medicare should pay for a treatment for cancer that costs millions/per person and only has a 1 in 10 chance of working? Most people would say the costs exceeds the benefits. I am sorry if it upsets your sensibilities but the system is already deciding who should live and who should die based on the costs of treatment. I think it is time we took off the blinders of and had a sensible discussion about what our priorities should be.

I wouldn't expect society to, but I think I should have the ability to pay the millions to save my own life though if the other option is my death.

[jdobbin]

Yep. Strange world. Someone who's already on assistance should at least try to be less of a burden to the society already supporting them. Who helps take care of these children? Do we provide her with a nanny?

I suppose the government could take her children away.

[geoffrey]

Yep. Strange world. Someone who's already on assistance should at least try to be less of a burden to the society already supporting them. Who helps take care of these children? Do we provide her with a nanny?

I suppose the government could take her children away.

Forced sterilization? I don't think that worked well in the past? But what's the sense of just taking someone's kids away so they have more. Maybe with kids she'd take on some responsibility. That being said, are the kids fair game for a big experiment... no. So hmm. Rock and a hard place.

[Riverwind]

Forced sterilization? I don't think that worked well in the past? But what's the sense of just taking someone's kids away so they have more.

We can't do anything that could cause permanent damage to the person but there are contraceptives that can be inserted under the arm. We should require that for all welfare recipients with kids (male too if as soon as they find a temporary contraceptive for men). If people still think that is a problem then we should at least cut their benefits for each kid born while they are on welfare. Right now some welfare moms see kids as a easy way to increase the monthly check from the gov't. The fact that more kids cost more money does not seem to provide enough of an incentive for people these people. I suspect this women had the twins because she thought it would be her ticket to lifetime financial support by the gov't and/or charitable people.