I don't often use my blog to post about "political issues" but I've just been made aware of this story from November 2011 which really makes me extremely sad:
According to an MSN NZ article, an Australian woman pregnant with twin boys chose to "terminate" one of the children at 32 weeks because he "had a congenital heart defect that would require years of operations, if he lived at all." The hospital, however, made an error during the procedure and killed the child without the heart defect. The mother then underwent an emergency c-section to "end the life of the sick child." (Note that they didn't deliver the baby to see if it would survive. They delivered him to end his life.)
Hospital error aside, how horrible is it that the mother and hospital planned to end the life of the "sick" child at all? 32 weeks is almost full-term and it is stated that he might have lived with medical intervention! Think of all the parents who are battling for their children's lives, whether they be struck with heart problems or cancer, are born premature or have been injured--would it be acceptable for them to "terminate" their sick children? NO. Why then was it acceptable in this case in Australia?
According to the above referenced article, the mother's friend says "She went to the hospital with two babies and now she has none... And she had the heartache of giving birth to her sick baby. She's traumatized."
Oh, really, she's traumatized? Forgive me if my heart breaks more for the two innocent children who were killed due to her and the hospital staff's terrible judgement. Aren't most folks aware that there is a risk to the entire pregnancy when you "selectively reduce" one or more multiples? Doctors should definitely be aware of this. And, again, what right did they have in ending the child's life at 32 weeks when he very well may have lived?
Maybe I'm being too harsh. Maybe there are details that I don't have which effected the mother's decision-making process (medical details, financial details, etc.) But--screw it--I'm on the side of the babies in this one. What a different situation it would be if she had just delivered the boys. What precious time she lost with both her boys because of this tragic decision.
What are your thoughts?
Maybe I'm being too harsh. Maybe there are details that I don't have which effected the mother's decision-making process (medical details, financial details, etc.) But--screw it--I'm on the side of the babies in this one. What a different situation it would be if she had just delivered the boys. What precious time she lost with both her boys because of this tragic decision.
What are your thoughts?
