What would you choose, as impoverished parents of conjoined babies who have been offered paid surgery to separate the children:
To enjoy the children as they are for as long as they will live? Or put them through surgery which has high risks: Surgery might result in a heart-attack in one child, which would likely lead to the death of both. And if they were separated successfully, they would have to live with only 1 leg each.
But there is much more to consider. What if the children would survive, conjoined, longer than separated? Perhaps surgery and separating the twins would only prolong suffering for both the parents and children. And these parents are in poverty; though the surgery is paid for, the care of these children, who may never walk or sit, will cost them much. I don't want to sound like economics is the final discussion. Not at all. But these are the issues that the team of doctors in Singapore must weigh.
Read the short story here.
In India, on the other hand, two 34-year old sisters who share a pair of legs have decided they want to stay as they are, especially after the sad deaths of 29-year old Iranian sisters in 2003 who were joined at the head. Imagine 34 years together on one pair of legs!
From their story:
"If God has made us this way, then this is how we should remain — together forever," she said.
When the Indian sisters were born, doctors told their parents the girls could live a normal life if they survived past three months. Ayara said she understood the motivation of the Iranian twins.
The phenomenon of conjoined twins — two bodies joined in the womb — occurs in 1 in every 2.5 million births, said Dr. Muralidhar Pai, a neurosurgeon at the Kasturba Medical College.
"Most attempts of separation lead to the death of both the children," Pai said. "Even saving one child during the separation is so uncommon that it remains a surgically challenging proposition."
Well personally it is very risky but some risks are worth taking. Just for the reference in my experience journalists infrequently have any knowledge of medical issues. The term "hole in her heart." is interesting (from the story) did you know1 in 4 people statistically have a “hole in their heart” most of which are inconsequential I might note most never realize they have them. (Termed a PFO) however there is a percentage with congenital abnormalities (i.e. larger holes if you like in hemodynamicly compromising positions) these may be of greater concern however the term "hole in her heart, in reference to.... suffering a heart attack in surgery" is well incorrect… they can of course have a heart attack as a complication but this is caused by insufficient blood supply to the heart muscles via artery not as a result of a "Hole in the heart". Yes there is certainly risks involving future medical care however I for one would not want to share every private moment with someone else. Imagine if you want to get married, have a partner, learn to drive etc….? Would you do it with your background overseas? (read your blogs)
Posted by: Lisa | April 20, 2006 at 07:25 AM