If there is any doubt that some doctors (or to be more accurate; hospitals run by lawyers trying to avoid getting sued) will make decisions that is best for their legal position and not best for the patient we have a story today that eliminates any of that doubt. It is about twins and the difficulties bringing them (or any multiples) to a successful birth (something we here at the Strata-Sphere are all too well experienced in). And it is about a terrible decision (due in part by medical system pressure no-doubt) to sacrifice one to supposedly save the other:

When doctors found that Gabriel was weaker than his brother, with an enlarged heart, and believed he was going to die in the womb, his mother Rebecca Jones had to make a heartbreaking decision.

Doctors told her his death could cause his twin brother to die too before they were born, and that it would be better to end Gabriel’s suffering sooner rather than later.

Mrs Jones decided to let doctors operate to terminate Gabriel’s life.

Firstly they tried to sever his umbilical cord to cut off his blood supply, but the cord was too strong.

They then cut Mrs Jones’s placenta in half so that when Gabriel died, it would not affect his twin brother.

But after the operation which was meant to end his life, tiny Gabriel had other ideas.

Although he weighed less than a pound, he put up such a fight for survival that doctors called him Rocky.

Astonishingly, he managed to carry on living in his mother’s womb for another five weeks – until the babies were delivered by caesarean section.

Thankfully they didn’t just go for the poor kid’s jugular (which would be the same as going for the umbilical cord) and slit the babies throat like a Jihadist. While this is a miracle of survival, it is not a miracle of surviving a disease or injury, it is a miracle of surviving a cold and calculated government enforced process.

When one of our twins ran into serious troubles there was the talk of “reduction”, the selection of terminating some to save the rest. In multiples over 2 (triplets and beyond) it is a serious and often faced decision. To be blunt, you don’t want a corpse floating around with the rest of the little babies because of what it could do to foul the womb and sicken those still fighting to live. Those conditions reflect the more obvious choices faced by parents.

But then you get to examples like ours and this couple’s experience and it is clear (since the babies lived and are healthy and happy) that the suggestion of “reduction” was more risk averse than required. And why be risk adverse?

In the US it is to avoid legal actions. We had some pressure to consider reduction – though the common placenta made it pretty much impossible. The comment came up (as I knew it would) and I squashed it. I knew if something happened we would have warning and time to deal with it. I was not going to move on potential possibilities.

But many couples don’t have someone reasonably versed in biology to stand up to medical opinions driven by legal CYA decisions. I have had to many times on just about all my children. The poke and prod and hurt until they are confident they have built up a good defense case.

In Britain it may be even simpler. They are on socialized medicine so bureaucrats do preemptive triage by holding back care based on available resources (which are always less than needed). This means they will make decisions based on funds required to save the life and whether those funds could save more other lives. I would not be surprised if the push to ‘reduce’ in this case had an financial underpinning. Primarily because they ended up monitoring the supposedly slow death of the twin, waiting to remove its body once it passed. Why not just monitor the twin and take action IF things became serious?

But no, they tried to create death by slicing away umbilical and removing the placenta. Which means they may have wanted to force death so they could save some money in emergency surgery. Somebody should investigate the records on this case. And even if it wasn’t a case of monetary forces driving the system to try and kill a healthy baby, then someone needs to determine what was the big risk in letting him grow UNTIL something serious showed up? Personally I think the answer they will find will be a shocker.

BTW, one of the reasons I oppose blanket bans on abortion is these cases, which are never addressed but quite numerous. There is not usually danger to the mother; it is all danger to the siblings. And there are clear cases when reduction is needed. This is one area no government or set of lawyers minding the bank should ever have a say. It is tough enough without a bunch of vultures and ignorant know-it-alls putting their useless opinions into the mix.