Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

News

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Such a sad story in the news - baby mistakenly terminated.

298 replies

Christmascack · 24/11/2011 05:41

www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/royal-womens-hospital-investigates-accidental-termination-of-wrong-twin-in-surgery-error/story-e6frg6nf-1226204303788

OP posts:
cazboldy · 24/11/2011 08:15

I agree belgo Sad

BananaChoc · 24/11/2011 08:15

The mistaken termination of a healthy unborn boy at Melbourne's Royal Women's Hospital is unlikely to be referred to the coroner because the baby never took a breath.

The 32-week foetus was this week terminated instead of his seriously ill twin brother in a procedure his mother agreed to on medical advice.

Doctors reportedly advised the woman that one of boys, whom she had already named, had a congenital heart defect that would require years of operations, if he survived at all, the Herald Sun reported.

'Traumatised' ... The hospital aborted the wrong baby. Photo: Craig Abraham

The mother made the heartbreaking decision to abort, but at 2.30pm on Tuesday the wrong baby was injected, terminating the healthy foetus.

The mother then underwent an emergency caesarian section to end the life of the sick child.

The hospital today confirmed "a distressing clinical accident occurred on Tuesday" and is investigating.

"This is a terrible tragedy and the hospital is deeply sorry for the loss suffered by the patient and her family," the hospital said in a statement.

"We are conducting a full investigation and continue to offer the family and affected staff every support."

But Victoria's Health Services Commissioner, Beth Wilson, said the tragic mix-up was unlikely to be referred to the coroner.

"I don't think so, the coroner only has jurisdiction where the foetus has actually been born and has taken a breath. My understanding is that didn't happen in this case," she told radio 3AW.

Ms Wilson said the hospital would conduct its own probe, but that Heath Minister David Davis could also intervene and request an investigation.

"Initially the hospital will do its own investigations," she said.

"They will keep me informed of what's happening. The minister may have his own ideas about this and he can ask for any number of invesatigations. He could ask me to do a formal inquiry or he could get somebody else to do it. That's in the hands of the minister.

"I would be waiting until I was contacted by the family before I had any involvement with them."

The family involved issued a statement through the hospital calling for the media to respect its request for privacy.

A friend of the woman said the family was struggling with the tragic circumstances.

"She went to the hospital with two babies and now she has none," the friend told the Herald Sun.

"And she had the heartache of giving birth to her sick baby. She's traumatised."

An ultrasound clinician checked three times before the termination because she did not want to make a mistake, the newspaper reported.

The woman's husband, a nurse, a doctor and the ultrasound clinician, who was inconsolable because of the mistake, were in the room at the time of the procedure.

A hospital spokeswoman was unsure if the woman was still in hospital. She said the hospital would not discuss the case further.

Ms Wilson said she had not been given details of the case and could not "make a judgment about what actually happened or who did what".

"It's an extremely distressing case for everybody involved, in particular the family, but in my experience when something goes wrong in health usually the health service providers are also very distressed," she said.

Comment has been sought from Mr Davis' office.

AtYourCervix · 24/11/2011 08:18

from that article there is just not enough detail to work out what was going on.

maybe both twins lives were at risk?

maybe she couldn't face giving birth knowing it would die, or be very disabled - why would anyone terminate at any stage for medical reasons? (hypothetically speaking)

belgo · 24/11/2011 08:19

AtYoruCervix - I agree, I can only imagine they would terminate at 32 weeks if both twins were at risk.

Auntiestablishment · 24/11/2011 08:22

I can never understand why heart defects are considered something to terminate for - why choose certain death for your child over possible life? Cardiology and surgery has come so far that while sadly not every baby will make it, most do.

I have a heart defect. I am well aware that this affects my view on the matter.

mummytime · 24/11/2011 08:22

I find this topic quite immoral, unlike normal abortion, the late abortion seems totally clearly morally wrong to me. Lots of 32 week babies survive. Why couldn't they just let her have a natural birth, and then the baby die naturally?
In the UK it is banned after 24 weeks I believe. Late term abortion in the UK means after 20 weeks, and only 1% of Abortions occur after 20 weeks.
I was shocked when I actually got caught up with a debate to try and ban it in the US, that it was even legal there.

Northernlurker · 24/11/2011 08:24

Late terminations are very rare. It is legal to terminate a child at that point but not after they have taken a breath. I find it hard to understand why somebody would choose that rather than allowing the child to be born and electing for purely palliative care but then I've never been in that situation. It's a horrible situation and a horrible process. I agree taht even if the 'wrong' twin hadn't been terminated this whiole situation would still be a major tragedy.

belgo · 24/11/2011 08:24

mummytime - abortions for medical reasons are legal until until full time (40 weeks +) in the UK.

There are many cases of babies being aborted at seven/eight months in the UK.

But I agree with you, from a moral perspective, I find it wrong, unless the mother's life is at risk.

saintlyjimjams · 24/11/2011 08:25

No mummytime. In the UK you can terminate up to birth for disability.

HarryHillatemygoldfish · 24/11/2011 08:25

32 week abortion unless there is actual direct risk to the mother's life is inexcusable, to me.

And I am pro choice. But 32 weeks is a complete and viable baby.

Northernlurker · 24/11/2011 08:26

aunti - x posted with you. Whilst many heart defects that used to be fatal are now treatable, there are still some with a very poor outlook indeed and termination would be offered. Obviously at a much earlier stage than this case.

BananaChoc · 24/11/2011 08:26

After reading that article I believe that the sick twin did not pose any problem to the other twin nor the mother whilst pregnant and that the advice to abort was in my opinion morally wrong.

Whilst I cannot even begin to image family life with a baby/child who is seriously ill and in and out of hospital and who could die young, I do feel it is not our choice to say, sorry but your life isn't worth living.

Why not let him be born but not give invasive treatments so at least he dies of natural causes.

Does that make sense? I really do not want to cause distress by my personal belief.

AtYourCervix · 24/11/2011 08:29

32 weeks is late but when you look at timings

anomoly scan at 20 weeks

referral to specialist centre, rescanning, discussions, decision making - frequently happens past 24 weeks.

Northernlurker · 24/11/2011 08:31

Banana - I agree with you but some parents decide that to end the life in this way is better than an uncertain period of what they may feel is suffering and the undoubted pain of seeing your child die. I don't differentiate between that and late termination but some people obviously do and seeing as they are the ones who have to live in that situation I guess it's up to them. Very, very hard though.

AtYourCervix · 24/11/2011 08:32

maybe the thought of watching him suffer and waiting for him to die naturally was just too much for her. might have taken years.

same for people who terminate for chromosomal abnormalities. personal choice.

valiumredhead · 24/11/2011 08:33

32 weeks is SO late, my ds was born then.

HarryHillatemygoldfish · 24/11/2011 08:34

Yes, it is a choice but a choice which can have, and has had, devastating consequences.

belgo · 24/11/2011 08:36

AtYourCervix yes I'm sure that is unbearable. It does not make it right to terminate at 32 weeks.

Just as it is unbearable for a baby to be born and be diagnosed weeks/months/years afterwards with a terminal illness. There is never any guarantee of having a healthy baby and people need to be aware of this before they decide to have a baby.

saintlyjimjams · 24/11/2011 08:37

I suppose the 'healthy' twin's chance of survival might have been higher post 32 weeks - and the poorly twin's existence may have increased the risk of prematurity. But it does sound all rather high risk.

I also agree with whoever said it's strange (for the media) to treat the termination of one twin as so much more of a tragedy than the termination of the other. I can completely see why it would be at a personal level of course. Either termination is acceptable this late or it isn't (my personal view is that it should be allowed at any stage up to birth for any reason at all - mainly because that would avoid the 'it's ok for one baby but not another' situation and would avoid the situation of having to guess the level of disability - which is pretty difficult to do before birth anyway. Have met many children who are not as ill/disabled as they are 'meant' to be).

tabulahrasa · 24/11/2011 08:37

I'm pro-choice and actually I can understand choosing to terminate a child that's going to die soon after birth - to try and make it easier for you and possibly even considering it as being a kinder outcome for the baby (saving them the birth trauma and any pain they might have) I don't know I've never been in that position.

But, if it's not a single pregnancy, doesn't that change it.

You're possibly compromising the other baby...you can't end a pregnancy for just one of them at that stage, the other would have to be delivered as well.

Which is why I'm wondering if it was going to be seriously ill rather than expected to die

AtYourCervix · 24/11/2011 08:40

i don't think it is right. i have massive issues with it (personally and professionally - causes big problems). i'd still argue for a woman's right to choose though.

it's a hidious mess and is tragic.

HarryHillatemygoldfish · 24/11/2011 08:40

8tabula* those were my exact thoughts.

BananaChoc · 24/11/2011 08:41

Yes, I understand from the parents view. I dont think i could have coped with a seriously ill baby/child but I don't think the Dr's should advise a termination at such a late stage.

I feel that the twin should have been born and allowed to die naturally with no artificial attempt to keep him alive. I also feel it would be important for the surviving, healthy twin tohave his brother born alive with him.

Like I said, my own personal view and one which may differ should i have ever been in that situation myself.

valiumredhead · 24/11/2011 08:43

Which is why I'm wondering if it was going to be seriously ill rather than expected to die

That makes more sense really, as ime 32 weeks is just a skinny baby that needs the last 8 weeks to fatten up - I was stunned at how big ds was at 32 weeks tbh.

saffronwblue · 24/11/2011 08:44

Wall to wall coverage of this here in Melbourne. The hospital ethics committee had to give permission for the late termination. I find it difficult to understand but imagine the mother is in agony over the decision more than anyone.
I don't like the way they all refer to a "fetus". For me a 32 weeker is a baby. I am prochoice but struggle with this one.
bananachoc we do have a public healthcare system in Australia. Not as comprehensive as the NHS but much better than the US (for a massive generalisation).

Swipe left for the next trending thread