PapaHilarious Posted November 13, 2007 Share Posted November 13, 2007 [quote name='MRSannie' post='1418835' date='Nov 13 2007, 02:27 PM']Ok, I am just being difficult here, but how is the parasitic twin any different than a person who is on life support, does not interact, but is not terminal? Please understand, I am just probing the ethics here, not being critical of what was done, and truly have compassion for the family and the little girl. But the residual twin's body was alive, and although she wasn't communicative, wasn't she THERE?[/quote] see the discussion above about the twin... it seems pretty clear that the one baby had died. if you've read something that says otherwise, though, please do post it for us to discuss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MRSannie Posted November 13, 2007 Author Share Posted November 13, 2007 I guess by the nature of it the twin was not dead--the twin's body was alive, hence the ability to transplant the kidney. The little girl was life support for the twin's body. If the twin had 'died' in utero, there would have been no body attached. So, if we go to conjoined twins, how do we define 'alive'?? Is a person who is brain damaged, unresponsive and on life support 'alive'??? Technically the parasitic twin was alive and growing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MRSannie Posted November 13, 2007 Author Share Posted November 13, 2007 here are pics that are very graphic [url="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=491757&in_page_id=1770"]http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/arti...in_page_id=1770[/url] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PapaHilarious Posted November 13, 2007 Share Posted November 13, 2007 [quote name='MRSannie' post='1418858' date='Nov 13 2007, 02:58 PM']I guess by the nature of it the twin was not dead--the twin's body was alive, hence the ability to transplant the kidney. The little girl was life support for the twin's body. If the twin had 'died' in utero, there would have been no body attached. So, if we go to conjoined twins, how do we define 'alive'?? Is a person who is brain damaged, unresponsive and on life support 'alive'??? Technically the parasitic twin was alive and growing.[/quote] isn't it true, though, that there was no developed head? this seems to be a bit of a stretch to imply the second twin was still alive just because some of the parts were there. we can keep human parts "alive" after someone dies after all, to be transplated to other people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prose Posted November 13, 2007 Share Posted November 13, 2007 There was no brain on the parasitic limbs. It was a body that had been absorbed. It was not alive because it had no brain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
littleflower+JMJ Posted November 13, 2007 Share Posted November 13, 2007 [quote name='prose' post='1418867' date='Nov 13 2007, 05:20 PM']There was no brain on the parasitic limbs. It was a body that had been absorbed. It was not alive because it had no brain.[/quote] I agree. I'm not a science major but this was the reason why this is not the same as abortion to me either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatholicCid Posted November 13, 2007 Share Posted November 13, 2007 [quote name='MRSannie' post='1418792' date='Nov 13 2007, 04:47 PM']double effect?[/quote] I don't think anyone has answered this specifically yet, but I believe it is when the procedure is done to save the life of one, not take the life of the other. An example of this would be a ectopic (tubal) pregnancy. For example, if a mother is suffering an ectopic pregnancy (a baby is developing in her fallopian tube, not the womb), a doctor may remove the fallopian tube as therapeutic treatment to prevent the mother’s death. The infant will not survive long after this, but the intention of the procedure and its action is to preserve the mother’s life. It is not a direct abortion. [url="http://www.americancatholic.org/Newsletters/CU/ac0898.asp"]http://www.americancatholic.org/Newsletters/CU/ac0898.asp[/url] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MRSannie Posted November 13, 2007 Author Share Posted November 13, 2007 wow, that SOOOO answers my question, but I guess I wonder if the parasitic twin threatened the life of the girl, or just made life difficult for her... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PapaHilarious Posted November 13, 2007 Share Posted November 13, 2007 [quote name='CatholicCid' post='1418889' date='Nov 13 2007, 04:07 PM']I don't think anyone has answered this specifically yet, but I believe it is when the procedure is done to save the life of one, not take the life of the other. An example of this would be a ectopic (tubal) pregnancy. For example, if a mother is suffering an ectopic pregnancy (a baby is developing in her fallopian tube, not the womb), a doctor may remove the fallopian tube as therapeutic treatment to prevent the mother’s death. The infant will not survive long after this, but the intention of the procedure and its action is to preserve the mother’s life. It is not a direct abortion. [url="http://www.americancatholic.org/Newsletters/CU/ac0898.asp"]http://www.americancatholic.org/Newsletters/CU/ac0898.asp[/url][/quote] and as discussed in other threads, abortion or any medical procedure that would unintentionally result in the death of a baby is [u]extremely[/u] rare. in the US, abortions that are done for "the health of the mother" are 2%, and that's only because they include mental health in this category (i.e. if a mother says she's having an abortion because she would have a mental breakdown to go through with the pregnancy, that counts.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prose Posted November 13, 2007 Share Posted November 13, 2007 [quote name='MRSannie' post='1418890' date='Nov 13 2007, 05:13 PM']wow, that SOOOO answers my question, but I guess I wonder if the parasitic twin threatened the life of the girl, or just made life difficult for her...[/quote] She does not have another human attached to her. I think this is where you may be struggling. She has the body parts of another human attached. And there is no reason to remove them if it is possible. It would be like if she had a tumor that made her life more difficult. Medical science would remove it. Same thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MRSannie Posted November 13, 2007 Author Share Posted November 13, 2007 [quote name='prose' post='1418896' date='Nov 13 2007, 06:19 PM']She does not have another human attached to her. I think this is where you may be struggling. She has the body parts of another human attached. And there is no reason to remove them if it is possible. It would be like if she had a tumor that made her life more difficult. Medical science would remove it. Same thing.[/quote] ok, just being the devil's advocate here, the quote above COULD be exactly what a pro-choice person would say about a zygote... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatholicCid Posted November 13, 2007 Share Posted November 13, 2007 It appears this incident is known as "fetus infetu", but it seems hard to find medical articles on it as it appears to be a very rare condition. I would agree with Prose, it appears that the twin had died in the womb early on and the other twin 'absorbed' his body, allowing the limbs to 'grow' thanks to her blood flow I believe. From the articles I could find, it seems that the child would not have lived past early adolescences. Part of the concern would be centered around blood flow due to the extra limbs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now