Parasitic Twins

[Brother Adam]

Does anyone know of any Church teaching on what may be morally done in the case of parasitic twins? We were discussing this in embryology and the teacher has not read anything yet which discusses the moral value of seperating them.

[Q the Ninja]

My guess is it would have to be in the intention whether it's moral or not...I don't know much on parasitic twins though, would you be able to help?

[Don John of Austria]

Where one twin actually feeds of the other?

[Brother Adam]

Examples of parasitic twins include where, at term (most twins die in the womb or immeadiately at birth) when one person is clearly dominating and the other is extremely malformed (in one case only a head formed, in another there were only legs and the lower part of the abdomin extruding out of the back of the dominate twin). Most cases the malformed or parasitic twin has no brain or heart function, mainly because there is usually no brain or heart.

[Q the Ninja]

I would say (as it was taught to me) that if you aren't directly acting upon the second child and don't want the death, but are acting to save the one (and would save the second) you're probably okay with the priniciple of double effect.

[Brother Adam]

[url="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6998205/?GT1=6190"]http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6998205/?GT1=6190[/url]

WARNING: GRAPHIC LINK

[Brother Adam]

I would would lean towards double effect also, but I was hoping the Church had possibly written something up on this somewhere.

[Don John of Austria]

My grandmother was a twin like this, the doctor said in no uncertian terms that she had killed the other twin, ( she is dead now or I would get more detailed info) she was nurse and never disputed it so I suppose that she understood exactly how that happened. However if there is a twin with no Brain or heart the child cannot be alive can it how can the removal of said cadaver be morally objectionable?

[Good Friday]

[quote name='Brother Adam']I would would lean towards double effect also, but I was hoping the Church had possibly written something up on this somewhere.[/quote]
I really don't think the Church has written anything on this, but you could check the documents of the [url="http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/index.htm"]Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith[/url] and the [url="http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_academies/acdlife/index.htm"]Pontifical Academy for Life[/url]. If there's anything to be found, I'd imagine you'd find it there -- I don't think Pope John Paul II had written anything on the subject.

I personally concur with the application of the principle of double effect as mentioned previously in this thread. If the intention is to save the life of the other child, with the indirect and unintended result of the disabled child's death, then I would think it's morally licit. But of course I submit that to the teaching of the magisterium, if there is one (I don't think there is), or if one comes available in the future.

[Brother Adam]

My question then would be, was the 'cadavar' ever a person with a soul? It started out, quite likely, just as any other monozygotic set of twins did. When did it die? When the heart and brain did not form?

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='Brother Adam' date='Jun 13 2005, 05:48 PM']My question then would be, was the 'cadavar' ever a person with a soul? It started out, quite likely, just as any other monozygotic set of twins did. When did it die? When the heart and brain did not form?
[right][snapback]610769[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Probably, this leads to sticky parts of biology, when debating with pro abortion people I often as " we agree that a new born is a real human person right? Well then going backward at what moment does it stop being a person. Usually you get either " when there are no brain waves" or a stumped person who reevaluated their beliefs, since brian waves start start before most women even know their pregnant it works out pretty well, but this is the opposite, what makes you dead. I don'[t think we have really worked that out, when does the soul leave the body? We haven't worked that out yet either. Are these twins still develping at an otherwise normal rate?

[Dreamweaver]

Wow, parasitic twins have always fascinated me. I have no idea where morality lies in separating them. Biology is weird stuff. I'd tend to believe that one could morally separate them by using the case of double effect, like treating women who have etopic pregnancies. The goal isn't to kill the other twin (what is the technical term for it), but to save the more healthy twin.

[Sarah_JC]

I saw this on Oprah. (boy, that sounds weird)
The doctors treated both babies exactly the same. The same steralization, the same anisthetic... but they were attached at the head, so both babies had fully formed heads, but the dependant one had no other organs.
So as a result of a necessary seperation, the dependant one died.
So sad.

In my intuitive girly logic, both children would have souls. In the case of the second twin only developing legs, or something like that, I would say the second child died at some point in gestation. If a brain is present and functioning, the child is alive. But if there is no brain, the question is tricky. I mean, there's arguments going on all the time on this board when does "ensoulment" take place? Does a zygote have a soul? Does an embryo have a soul? We can't prove it, we just know it.
Obviously, when in doubt, err on the side of caution.

Wow... what a complicated topic. I can understand that if a unborn child stops developing, they will die, but if a born child stops, they will not. So in this way, a partially developed child may no longer be alive. But there's no proof of that.

Gotta stop before I fall asleep.

[Carrie]

[quote name='Sarah_JC' date='Jun 13 2005, 10:52 PM']I saw this on Oprah. (boy, that sounds weird)
The doctors treated both babies exactly the same. The same steralization, the same anisthetic... but they were attached at the head, so both babies had fully formed heads, but the dependant one had no other organs.
So as a result of a necessary seperation, the dependant one died.
So sad.

In my intuitive girly logic, both children would have souls. In the case of the second twin only developing legs, or something like that, I would say the second child died at some point in gestation. If a brain is present and functioning, the child is alive. But if there is no brain, the question is tricky. I mean, there's arguments going on all the time on this board when does "ensoulment" take place? Does a zygote have a soul? Does an embryo have a soul? We can't prove it, we just know it.
Obviously, when in doubt, err on the side of caution.

Wow... what a complicated topic. I can understand that if a unborn child stops developing, they will die, but if a born child stops, they will not.  So in this way, a partially developed child may no longer be alive. But there's no proof of that.

Gotta stop before I fall asleep.
[right][snapback]610967[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I saw that same show. It was really interesting. The baby who had only a head lived off the other child physically but was had it's own distinct movements and emotions. They cried at different times, slept at different times, etc. I would agree with Sarah that both children had souls.