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

[Christmascack]

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

eminencegrise good posts and wannabe's

I think this story would never have been told if the "right" twin had been terminated,

the emphasis is on downs screening because that is one of the very few that can be diagnosed antenatally.

imo there are far far worse things that could affect a child.

what a dreadful story

i am pro-choice, however, this story sends shivers down my spine and really tests my believes in what is life, what risks are deemed acceptable and morality terminations at such late stage as well as all the other can of worms about euthanasia and disabilities...

i gave birth to dd in June at 24+1 and witnessed first hand efforts that doctors and nurses put into caring for my lo who lived for 23 days i was warned about possible disabilities, i am NOT impartial

just utterly heartbreaking

What would have then happened to the terminated twin? Would he have been removed via Caesarian when other twin was born?

SaraSidle, that's what I wondered. Would they have left hime there for up to 8 weeks or carried out an earlier CS?

if surviving twin carried on healthy - yes, they would leave him there.

A lot of late abortions are carried out in the Western world for reasons a lot more spurious than this. As a health care professional I attended a lecture listing the statistics. It was heart breaking. Off the top of my head I think the most tragic was a 36 week abortion in France for a baby with a hand missing. That was her only abnormality . It was terribly upsetting.

I am pro choice. I can understand a later TOP for a problem incompatible with life such as Potters syndrome mentioned above. BUT in this case as it was a twin pregnancy I would certainly not want to risk the healthy twin. I assume there must be some information missing here. The suggestion is that the child may have a problem that could have been managed albeit with surgery.

The poor parents! No doubt on top of being bereaved, the guilt they are probably feeling is unthinkable.

AtYourCervix, thanks for clarifying.

Poor family

Yes, thanks.

I think this is a really awful story and I don't think it should have been publicised against the parent's wishes.

Surely some situations in life are just so awful that none of us can really predict how we would feel / what we would choose if they happened to us? To then have that compounded by this sort of medical error would be completely horrific.

I am pro-choice. I also think that if I had been in this position I might well have made the same choice - to spare my baby a short, horrible life filled with agony and pain. Effectively she chose to euthanise her baby the only way that she could - before he was born. Perhaps if she'd had the choice to birth him and then ensured that she could give him a humane, pain-free death, she would have chosen that instead. But "natural causes" are very rarely that, and even withholding treatment / surgeries would presumably have had significant legal implications.

I really don't think she should be judged for doing what she did, whatever her reasons.

I just don't understand this story at all. It seems really peculiar.

Poor parents. Nothing but sympathy for them - it was a tragic mistake.
I think you're either pro choice or not, and I am pro. As a previous poster said, many abnormalities or defects aren't discovered until 20+ weeks anyway so all abortions would have to be carried out after then.

then the date for terminations should be raised for all "babies"

Why does it seem peculiar, Sardine?

Oh what I said upthread.

I don;t understand this story at all. Aborting one of a pregnancy of two at any stage surely is going to be very risky for the other foetus - especially at as late a stage as this. I don't understand why the doctors recommended it, what was going on. I think there must be more to this, why it was even considered in the first place.

I can't imagine a situation in the UK where a woman at 32 weeks would be recommended to terminate one of a twin pregnancy at 32 weeks. Unless her life of the life of the other foetus were at risk. I just don't understand it.

I havn't read the whole thread so probably just repeating wht others have said.

Seems odd that they suggested termination at 32 weeks (i didn't think you could abort that late)?

Avery sad story though for all concerened.

When i read the thread title i thought 'i'm sure a lot of healthy babbies are terminated, think of people who terminate because theres a high risk of downs, i wonder how many of them actually dont have downs?'.

The poor family though to find that the wrong twin had been aborted .

Horrific story.

Don't want to judge as obviously don't know full circumstances but 32 weeks...jesus. Poor babies.

How were they intending to remove the one that had been killed without impacting the other foetus?

It just doesn't make sense.

I think there must have been compelling reasons for this recommendation which have not been released.

Iy's not an abortion per se. They inject the bab y with a saline like solution to stop it's heart. Baby stays in utero til woman goes into labour or is induced with other child. It's is risky, but normal.

I had my boys at 28 weeks, and two days before they were born i was asked if i wished to terminate DS1. I suspect if my pregnancy had carried on then they would have kept asking.

How heartbreaking. I also don't really understand why they were stopping the heart of the poorly twin when he would then have to remain where he is until the healthy twin was ready to be born. If his heart condition meant that he would die immediately after birth then maybe nature should have been left alone for that to happen (only if he couldn't be helped to survive of course). However, none of us were there & only have a brief newspaper article to go on - the parents obviously felt they were doing the right thing for their babies. It's tragic whichever way you look at it.

Presumably the other twin would have to be delivered early... Makes no sense at all. Must be more to it.

They don't removed the baby that is dead. The mother has to give birth to it when she gives borth to it's twin.

Sevenfold I don't get your point. Some terminations can only be carried out late because conditions don't show up until after a certain time, eg 20 weeks. Therefore I would say it is reasonable to terminate "foetuses" who have, for example, a condition that is incompatible with life at later stages of pregnancy.
As I said, I am pro choice. I don't suppose anybody would take the decision to abort a 32 week foetus lightly, do you?