Egyptian Doctors Remove Baby's Second Head

[3dGameMan]

Egyptian Doctors Remove Baby's Second Head: ~source (http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=1JRIJG2CFEIPWCRBAE0CF EY?type=scienceNews&storyID=7680000)

http://wwwi.reuters.com/images/mdf865759.jpg

By Amil Khan
BENHA, Egypt (Reuters) - Egyptian doctors said they removed a second head from a 10-month-old girl suffering from one of the rarest birth defects in an operation Saturday.

Abla el-Alfy, a consultant in paediatric intensive care, told Reuters at the hospital in Benha, near Cairo, that Manar Maged was in a serious but improving condition after the procedure to treat her for craniopagus parasiticus -- a problem related to that of conjoined twins linked at the skull.

"We are still working on the baby. After surgery ... you get unstable blood pressure, you get fever. But she is stabilizing," Alfy said. "We have some improvement."

As in the case of a girl who died after similar surgery in the Dominican Republic a year ago, the second twin had developed no body. The head that was removed from Manar had been capable of smiling and blinking but not independent life, doctors said.

Video footage provided by the hospital, a national center in Egypt for children's medicine, showed Manar smiling and at ease in a cot with the dark-haired "parasitic" twin, attached at the upper left side of the girl's skull, occasionally blinking.

After the 13-hour operation, Reuters journalists saw the baby, her head swathed in bandages and body wreathed by tubes, in an intensive care ward. A separate twin sister, Noora, is healthy after initial problems with the birth on March 30...

[Orangepeel]

So there would have been triplets, except for the fact that they didn't separate properly at birth. WoW!

I think that's one of the most disturbing birth defects I've ever seen :(. For a minute there, before reading the whole thing, I thought it was a hoax!

Apparently another baby died last year of the same diagnosis. They tried to separate her as well.

[egarrard]

I guess two heads AREN'T better than one... :Wink

[NeatoFanta]

I think that's one of the most disturbing birth defects I've ever seen :(.
OooooOOoooOOOOO :Holy Crap Thats so strange. I totally agree with you!

[eire1274]

They sead the "second" head blinked, it's eyes tracked motion, and it smiled. It obviously couldn't vocalize, as it had no lungs, but was that head a living, intelligent 10-month-old, as well?

[cegli]

Man that is really weird... Does the second head actually have a brain in it that can think properly? Does the lack of a central nevous system basically make it a vegatable? So many questions...

[NeatoFanta]

They sead the "second" head blinked, it's eyes tracked motion, and it smiled. It obviously couldn't vocalize, as it had no lungs, but was that head a living, intelligent 10-month-old, as well?
Looks that way. However, it couldnt possibly survive in that condition.

[Silent_Death911]

At first I thought it was a photoshop. Now....*shivers*

[SweetLou]

So the question is...could separating the extra head that seems to be alive be considered murder or assisted suicide or something like that?

[NeatoFanta]

So the question is...could separating the extra head that seems to be alive be considered murder or assisted suicide or something like that?
I dont see how. They couldnt possibly survive anyway, it makes sense to separate it so one of them can.

[SweetLou]

I dont see how. They couldnt possibly survive anyway, it makes sense to separate it so one of them can.
Oh I know that, but I can also see that some people might see it differently. I am talking especially about all the pro lifers out there. This is no different than that as far as I can tell.

[egarrard]

So the question is...could separating the extra head that seems to be alive be considered murder or assisted suicide or something like that?It qualifies as a partial-birth abortion, I guess, since it was only partially born. That makes killing it okay. :Thumb

[SweetLou]

It qualifies as a partial-birth abortion, I guess, since it was only partially born. That makes killing it okay. :Thumb
Yep you are correct. This really is very disturbing to me. Whew... :Sigh

[wazman]

It qualifies as a partial-birth abortion, I guess, since it was only partially born. That makes killing it okay. :Thumb

I don't believe that's true in this case. Was it really alive on its own? To the point that it could do the things a person like you or I could do? Perhaps it could blink. But people in vegatative and brain dead states can also perform basic motor functions. That doesn't mean they're going to wake up one morning and start dancing the Charleston.

In this instance, if the patient to which it was attached had a better chance of living with it removed, then this was the correct course of action. Please don't bring the politics into a situation that doesn't call for them, OK?

[SweetLou]

I don't believe that's true in this case. Was it really alive on its own? To the point that it could do the things a person like you or I could do? Perhaps it could blink. But people in vegatative and brain dead states can also perform basic motor functions. That doesn't mean they're going to wake up one morning and start dancing the Charleston.

In this instance, if the patient to which it was attached had a better chance of living with it removed, then this was the correct course of action. Please don't bring the politics into a situation that doesn't call for them, OK?
Well it really isn't politics exactly...it is a really simple concept. Would you feel ok about killing something that is alive to save someone else. That is what it comes down to. I am with you though. I would rather have the conscious living twin to live than the one that could never have a real life, but it doesn't make it the right thing to do. Killing is killing. I wonder what Bobenis has to say about this one.

[wazman]

Well it really isn't politics exactly...it is a really simple concept. Would you feel ok about killing something that is alive to save someone else. That is what it comes down to. I am with you though. I would rather have the conscious living twin to live than the one that could never have a real life, but it doesn't make it the right thing to do. Killing is killing. I wonder what Bobenis has to say about this one.

Well, there is such a thing as parasitic twins, where one twin has another twin's partly formed body inside his or her body (or outside, as in this case), and the partly formed twin is siphoning off the life of the healthy twin. If the parasitic twin isn't removed, the healthy twin will die. It could have been something like this in this case.

I don't know if any of us can really comment on what this must be like, or the ethical implications of something like this, unless we're actually in this situation.

And of course, there's the question of what happens if the healthy twin dies during the removal of the other. What would you do in that case - if you knew one could not live, and there was a chance of the other dying, and you had to decide something like this? I couldn't imagine what that would be like, and I sincerely hope I never have to.

I'm sure the parents didn't just flip a coin to decide to do this - they've probably looked at every side of this and decided this was the best thing to do for the health of their child.

(Note: in the above, I use the word "twin" cause it's the only example I could think of. I don't know if this is a twin, per se, but the same thoughts apply.)

[egarrard]

if the patient to which it was attached had a better chance of living with it removed, then this was the correct course of action.That is EXACTLY the same argument as is used in favor of abortion.

[wazman]

That is EXACTLY the same argument as is used in favor of abortion.

But completely different circumstances.

If I was a parent and had to make a choice like this, I don't know what I'd do. But I'm sure these parents thought long and hard before they let the doctors do this.

What would you do in this situation? What would any of you do? We have a wide mix of people here - some parents, some not. Your child has another head and part of a body living off her. You know what health risks she will suffer because of this. You also know that she will be a social outcast, looked upon as a freak. You want what's best for your child.

What would you do?

[egarrard]

Both children are the woman's child. Euthanasia's okay now?

[wazman]

Both children are the woman's child. Euthanasia's okay now?

I don't have a big bullseye painted on me, so please don't treat me as if I do, all right?

What would you do? Stop with the attacks and answer the question. You act like you've got all the answers, so let's hear it. You're in a situation like this, where you have to make this decision. What do you do?

[SweetLou]

I would have the extra head removed, but I would never be able to forget about the other child. It would prolly haunt me.

[wazman]

I would have the extra head removed, but I would never be able to forget about the other child. It would prolly haunt me.

I'm sure it would me, too... It can't be an easy decision for anyone to make.

[eire1274]

Well, there is such a thing as parasitic twins, where one twin has another twin's partly formed body inside his or her body (or outside, as in this case), and the partly formed twin is siphoning off the life of the healthy twin. If the parasitic twin isn't removed, the healthy twin will die. It could have been something like this in this case.
My big problem is that there are MANY people who were born with parasitic twins who lived healthy, if not normal, lives. The "Freak Shows" of circus and carnival attractions used to be full of them. They were not respected, of course, but their odd lifestyle made a huge income. Granted, as near as I can tell, none had a parasitic twin that had a case as above, where the twin could actually be a possibly conscious, seperate human being.

I do not believe in the philosophy of "sacrifice one so the other may live". This just pains me. I believe that every effort must be made to save both. Killing one to save, or even ease, another, is nothing more than the genocide of, say, WWII, on a smaller level.

A living, conscious child with an incomplete body would be reliant on it's attached host for nutrition and oxygen. Unfortunately, we are not given this information in this case, so it is impossible to really give judgement.

To clear things up, I am opposed to abortion (and I consider this to possibly be an abortion). It agrees with my moral, regilious views, of course, but there is a deeper meaning which means a lot to me, as an individual, that I am not willing to casually share. Rape, incest, etc., it is not the fault of the new genetic code that is formed in conception, and abortion does not cure the foul act that created it.