Hospital aborts wrong baby

[Beckpatton]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...=feeds-newsxml

Dont think this has been brought up yet. I myself am pro choice, but I find myself a little perturbed at this. While I feel for the family, losing both babies, why did they wait so long to abort the unhealthy one? Why abort when it's only a probability not a certainty that the one with the heart defect might not survive, and if they did survive, would probably need surgery to correct the defect?

I guess the part that makes me uncomfortable is that the decision to abort only arises when they discover the baby isn't perfect. They've chosen to keep the baby, but suddenly it's all going to be too much so lets just get rid of it. (I don't know how to word it that doesn't sound harsh, I apologise) ..

Yes they are facing the probability that their baby is going to be born sick, might not even survive.. but they didn't give it a chance! Here in Australia there wouldn't have been a financial burden I guarantee it.. just an emotional one, facing surgeries etc. They had to know there was going to be some risk to the healthy fetus, so why risk it? I guess I would have rolled the dice and taken my chances.. having to abort this late in the pregnancy would have been just as devastating as having the baby pass away not long after birth, so why not take the chance?

I guess I see this opening a floodgate, and where do we draw the line? Babies with serious medical conditions, to babies of the "wrong" gender.. (I heard a report earlier this year of a couple terminating a pregnancy because it was a boy when they wanted a girl!! and that was after IVF!)

I'm sorry if I'm coming across as uncaring or self righteous. I never thought I'd be making a post like this as I am pro choice.. but I think there should be limits.. aborting a fetus within the first 10 weeks or so, before it's had a chance to really form into any kind of being, (at least in my eyes) because it was unplanned, unexpected etc I understand.. mistakes happen.. but at 32 weeks, this fetus could have survived outside the womb, even for a little while... where do we draw the line? I understand late term abortions happen when there is a health risk to the mother.. but to have one because the baby is going to be a huge inconvenience... I find myself questioning my beliefs..

Again I am very pro choice, this case has just thrown me for a loop, and I hope to never be in their shoes!! I have discussed this with family members who are also pro choice, and we are all a little mixed about it.. so I was just hoping to get others opinions.

[BlaqueKatt]

I read this story and was too upset to post it.

Mainly because of the 32 week gestation. Main reason being, they injected the fetus to kill it, but didn't think what the possible effect would be on the other fetus(if they had gotten the right one, which I imagine might be difficult, especially as they move, and amniocentesis poses a risk to the fetus as well, due to this reason). I can think of two possible bad outcomes:
1) the body begins labor to expel the deceased fetus and the "healthy" fetus would be born premature, and with health problems, as once labor begins it is very difficult to stop it, and can be dangerous especially if the amniotic sac ruptures.
2) and this may be a bit squicky, but I have seen a cat that had one kitten die in utero, and was almost liquified due to natural decomposition processes, the remaining kittens died within a few hours of birth, and the mother cat died within a week, due to massive uterine infection/sepsis.

[Beckpatton]

1) the body begins labor to expel the deceased fetus and the "healthy" fetus would be born premature, and with health problems, as once labor begins it is very difficult to stop it, and can be dangerous especially if the amniotic sac ruptures.

First off, sorry to upset you!

and second, that's what I thought, how could aborting one fetus, especially at 32 weeks, not be risky to the healthy one?

[Greenday]

why did they wait so long to abort the unhealthy one? Why abort when it's only a probability not a certainty that the one with the heart defect might not survive, and if they did survive, would probably need surgery to correct the defect?

Different health problems take different amounts of gestation time to develop and show.

Why abort? Because the probability is extremely high. It's not like it's "Eh, we are 5% sure it's going to have heart problems. Let's abort!"

[Andara Bledin]

Except that cardiac development occurs very early in the pregnancy - at 7 weeks and most congenital heart defects show up on the first ultrasound, traditionally had at 20 weeks.

32 weeks is awfully late in a pregnancy to terminate when there is no danger to either the mother or twin, particularly when you consider the dangers inherent even were the procedure successful.

[edit to add]
Honestly, I'm not really sure I approve of abortion to avoid potential medical complications in the child. Yes, it was confirmed that the baby would not be healthy. However, I have known people with life-threatening heart defects who have gone to live fulfilling lives, one of whom now does IT support for rescue crews around the world.

An article in the Herald Sun - Doctors are Human and Not All Defects Are a Death Sentence

^-.-^

[Greenday]

How often was she going for checks? Regularly? Randomly?

How much shit was she given for thinking of having an abortion? Was she forced to go to therapy before it? Or any other crazy requirements trying to push it back until it's too late?

[Kaylyn]

I'm noticing the source, Daily Mail, which I always take with a grain of salt. I'm also noticing lack of any real identifiers. I understand anonymity in such a case, but we're seeing "a woman," "a hospital," "a doctor," which are hallmarks of urban legends and internet rumors. Not to jump on the Daily Mail hate bandwagon, but I would like to see another news source report this that isn't just copying the article here, and provides a bit more specificity, before I buy this story.

[Greenday]

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-...s-wrong-fetus/

CBS says it was the Royal Women's Hospital in Melbourne.

[BlaqueKatt]

Honestly, I'm not really sure I approve of abortion to avoid potential medical complications in the child. Yes, it was confirmed that the baby would not be healthy.

and it's not like the doctor's could've made a mistake in the diagnosis as they did in this case diagnosed with a fixable defect, aborted and found to be healthy. Or the case in Italy where a doctor lost his license for aborting the healthy twin rather than the one with down's syndrome.

[Andara Bledin]

How often was she going for checks? Regularly? Randomly?

No telling. However, since fees for such as that aren't the same sort of issue in Australia, it is quite likely that she had regular checkups starting with ultrasounds at 20 weeks.

How much shit was she given for thinking of having an abortion?

Considering that it was on the hospital's advice that she abort, my theory is that she didn't get any shit.

This took place in Australia, so you can't bring what are predominantly American assumptions to bear with a very high degree of accuracy.

I'm noticing the source, Daily Mail, which I always take with a grain of salt. I'm also noticing lack of any real identifiers. I understand anonymity in such a case, but we're seeing "a woman," "a hospital," "a doctor," which are hallmarks of urban legends and internet rumors.

Actually, no. There is a very specific hospital being mentioned (Royal Women's Hospital), with the names of regulatory officials and hospital staff.

The story appears to have first been reported by the Daily Telegraph, in Australia and has been picked up by quite a large variety of other outlets. The Daily Mail picked it up with everybody else. I found all of this via a simple Google News search using the hospital name and then sorting by date.

^-.-^

[HYHYBT]

A possible train of logic...

Keeping the kitten example in mind, leaving a *dead* twin in there with the live one could be disastrous. The sick one was likely to die, and 32 weeks is certainly far enough along that if labor followed the other could simply be delivered early.

It went wrong, and hindsight shows this wasn't the best route to take in this case, but it does make a sort of sense.

[BlaqueKatt]

A possible train of logic...

Keeping the kitten example in mind, leaving a *dead* twin in there with the live one could be disastrous. The sick one was likely to die, and 32 weeks is certainly far enough along that if labor followed the other could simply be delivered early..

however pre-term infants have their own host of potentially life threatening medical problems, so the "healthy" twin would have likely had medical issues as well, the same or worse issues they were trying to avoid in the "unhealthy" twin.

Premature babies face an increased risk of lasting disabilities, such as mental retardation, learning and behavioral problems, cerebral palsy, lung problems and vision and hearing loss

apnea, or periods where breathing stops, occurs in 85% of babies born before 34 weeks. Apnea may come with periods of bradycardia, where the heart slows down.

up to 80% of preemies suffer from Severe Jaundice from excess bilirubin which can cause brain damage.

Respiratory distress affects as many as 43% of premature babies born between 30 and 32 weeks, due to a lack of surfectant in the lungs as they are not fully developed.

intraventricular hemorrhage occurs in up to 14% of infants born between 30 and 32 weeks

patent ductus arteriosis(a serious heart condition) occurs in 8% of infants born between 30 and 32 weeks, causes abnormal circulation. Medication or surgery may be needed to close the ductus.

[MadMike]

My views on the issue aside, I think the other twin should have been given a chance. Doctors aren't always right, after all. I'm friends with a pair of female twins, and one of them was born with all kinds of problems. I don't know if the problems were identified before birth, but the doctors were saying she wasn't going to survive.

At the age of 13, the one girl's kidneys failed completely, and she needed a transplant. Her sister gave her one of hers, but the doctors didn't want to do it because they felt they didn't understand the seriousness of the situation at such a young age. They actually had to go to court to be allowed to go through with it.

Today, the twins are 35 years old and perfectly healthy, although the one is a lot smaller than her sister. The bigger twin refers to her smaller sister as "Mini-me."

[Andara Bledin]

however pre-term infants have their own host of potentially life threatening medical problems, so the "healthy" twin would have likely had medical issues as well, the same or worse issues they were trying to avoid in the "unhealthy" twin.

Except that your own example is listing birth times of 30-32 weeks in most of those examples, and 34 in one. They'd already reached 32 weeks without any complications, which makes me think they weren't in any particular danger of being born prior to 34 weeks, making most of that information rather less relevant to their situation.

^-.-^

[BlaqueKatt]

Except that your own example is listing birth times of 30-32 weeks in most of those examples

yes and if they attempted to remove the deceased fetus, it's likely labor would cause the second to be born at 32 weeks, and not removing the dead fetus, decomposition would occur, story of a woman trying to have her 19 week gestation fetus removed after fetal death, D&E is apparently the safest for the mother in cases of fetal death.