|
|
Conjoined Twins Ready for Seperation
Conjoined twins ready to undergo surgery for separation at the skull.
Must be an expensive surgery? Who pays this? The parents? Or is this some really neat way for doctors to get some experience with weird shit and they do it for free?
Why would you put 2 small children through this? Did they not see this conjoinment in an ultrasound as little as 12 weeks into the pregnancy?
Yet, this to me is another act of selfishness of the parent. NO, I'm not a parent, but I am practical in the sense when I think I can make a correct decision on when it is fair and not fair to bring a life into this world. It just was not meant to be at that point.
Same goes for some parents out there that want to bring severely deformed or mentally retarded children into the world and attempt to watch them make it on their own. I am talking 'severe' problems. Not some minor mental or physical impairment.
Why would you WANT to make another human go through unneeded bullshit, mental/physical strain and basically YOU taking care of a baby that continues to grow for the rest of your life, but needs the constant care of a small child. Ask yourself " is that fair'? Not just for you, but for that other human YOU made a choice to make it suffer for the rest of its life.
Touchy subject, I know. But until you have seen something suffer, and being able to release it from the suffering. You will NEVER see what I am able to see. Even if I just work with animals. I know when its NOT fair to keep something going when the suffering is so severe that you can't fix the pain, only manage it.
It is in best interest of the two twins, in my opinion, to stay together. If one can be seperated and live and the other one has to be sacrificed, that is unethical and shouldn't happen because the twins best interest is to live, everyone has that right.
Posted by: Rachel Phillips on December 2, 2002 07:45 PMI understand both veiw points for this subject. Conjoined twins shouldn't be seperated especially if 1 twin is sacrificed just to let 1 of them live. But, if you want them to live a normal live seperation surgury could be the case. The doctors shouldn't be gambling with lives.
Posted by: Meredith McGraw on April 2, 2003 03:25 PMI understand both veiw points for this subject. Conjoined twins shouldn't be seperated especially if 1 twin is sacrificed just to let 1 of them live. But, if you want them to live a normal live seperation surgury could be the case. The doctors shouldn't be gambling with lives.
Posted by: Meredith McGraw on April 2, 2003 03:25 PMI think that if both twins will die but one could live seperated then its the best thing to do. I don't think that its right to bring children like that into the world tho if known soon enough. They will suffer all their life and many die anyways. They cannot lead a normal life and may never even be able to move and function properly. Its just wrong.
Posted by: Rachel Shields on July 10, 2003 12:06 AMI think that I would NOT enjoy being 20 years old and connected to my siblings head... I don't see an argument here.
I also don't think abortion would have been the answer. You think it's wrong to sacrifice one for the other, but it's okay to kill them both? They deserve a chance and that's what the parents and the doctors are trying to give them.
Posted by: Jodi on October 24, 2003 09:56 PMThank God it is a choice most people never have to make. Yes I would sacrifice one rather than loose both, at least I think I would.
Posted by: Pat Johnson on October 25, 2003 10:04 AMi am doing a paper on conjoined twin and some of the things i have read i hope i never ever have to make any decisions about wether one of my children will die or which one will live when i have children but i think i may chose one to live rather than loosing both. but what when the child gets older and regrets that its life was given to him so that is brother or sister was sacrficed?
Posted by: mary on October 29, 2003 10:57 AMWell at least he had the chance to GET older right?
Posted by: Jodi on November 26, 2003 11:46 AM