Quick, Easy Criticism of Conjoined Twins' Parents is Just That
Last week on Bioedge, Michael Cook brought to our attention a story from the UK involving Lisa and Mike Chamberlain, soon-to-be parents of conjoined twins, who have refused to consider terminating their pregnancy. The exact extent to which the twins are conjoined is still not known to their doctors, but to date their physicians have seen two heads, a single body cavity and set of limbs, and have only heard a single heart beating. Doctors have estimated that the twins' chances of survival are around 20%.
Even with these basic known facts, the Chamberlains have refused to consider termination. Why? For one, the couple tried to conceive for seven years--and upon conception, these two babies are their only children. To give them up would surely be a devastating tragedy. The Bioedge blog sharply criticized the Chamberlain's critics, who have been many according to Bioedge, but in particular a columnist from The Telegraph who said that the couple is "selfish", "irredeemably selfish" and condemning their children to a life as a "freak show".
However, I wouldn't be so quick to judge. For one, after seven years of trying to conceive, the recent news that your children are conjoined and have a 20% chance of survival would be enough to give any parent poor judgment. Moreover, after twenty weeks, when more conclusive data regarding whether the twins share all their vital organs, particularly the heart, come in--then it will be time to ask the parents to weigh all the information and to make and informed choice. Perhaps they will have to make a choice as many parents of conjoined twins do in favor of one twin over the over. Or perhaps termination of the pregnancy entirely will be the only option.
At this point, however, I think criticism of these parents is premature. Only they really understand how difficult this situation is. Once a full set of facts is available, they will have to make a decision. If the data suggest that the twins share all their vital organs and a single body, termination will likely be the only option. However, due to their personal religious beliefs (they are Roman Catholic), the Chamberlains still may not choose it. And even if the majority of persons disagree with their decision, ultimately it is Lisa and Mike Chamberlain who have to live with their moral choice. Even if we will never understand it.
Summer Johnson, PhD
contribute a comment
Your contributions to the conversation are very much appreciated. We do have a few simple guidelines, though. Be civil. Stay on topic. We reserve the right to remove comments that violate the aforementioned guidelines. One more thing: comments are moderated, so it may take a little while for your comment to be posted. Thanks.
comments
Perhaps the Chamberlains actually believe what their faith teaches: that all life is sacred because all life is from God and are made in God's image. These two people wanted a child - wanted children - and this child Ms. Chamberlain is carrying is the child God has given them. From the human perspective (which is flawed, at best, by virtue of our finite human understanding), the child is flawed and perhaps some people think God cruel to allow such a child to be conceived; however, from God's perspective, perhaps this life in Ms. Chamberlain's womb is just as perfect and sacred as the life of any physically and psychologically normal child. Should these parents destroy the child because of its imperfection and then ask God to send them another child: one that fits everyone's idea of an acceptable human being? The Chamberlains are saying 'yes' to life by accepting the responsibility of this special needs child, for surely their decision sends a message to the rest of us, beyond their very personal stake in this situation. Their decision to give life to the child perhaps reveals a very strong ability to truly love in a Christ-like way, since those who need love the most are those that are least likely to receive love easily in this flawed, imperfect world of ours. These difficult to love people are the very same people Christ spent time with during His days on earth. The Chamberlains are showing us Christ, in their decision to give birth to their less-than-perfect child.
- by Teresa on Jan 19, 2009 at 8:49 AM | link
My sympathetic understanding to the Chamberlains.About 8 years ago, I was in the same dilemna with the Chamberlains. After several years of undergoing fertility work ups just to conceived, I got pregnant. But 5 months into the pregnancy, my baby was diagnosed to have multiple congenital defects (cardiomegaly,hepatospleenomegaly,no kidneys,short limbs etc.)With my Dr telling me that the defects are almost incompatible to life. I was given 2 options : to terminate or continue with my pregnancy.Being a first time mother and a Roman Catholic,I never considered termination of my pregnancy.But I was still hoping againts hope that some miracles may happen along the way. I had an emergency cesarian operation at 7 months of pregnancy after profused bleeding. And before I went into the operating room, I asked my Dr that I want to sign a DNR form(Do NOT Resuscitate) for my baby.My reason was, I dont want all those tubes dangling on my baby's body and to prolong his agony.Several weeks after the diagnosis, I have come to terms with the reality that my baby will be gone. He was born alive and I had the opportunity to hear his cries and cradle him in my arms for 10 minutes. I never regretted my decision to continue my pregnancy for that precious 10 minutes I had with my son. After 9 unsuccessful pregnancies, and on my early 40's, I was able to conceived a healthy normal baby girl.Im sure that as the weeks and months go by, the Chamberlains will be able to decide what is best for them and their baby. Whichever they decide, let's not be judgemental ,because we dont know how painful and difficult it is to be in their position.
- by Jean Yeban Merlan on Jan 19, 2009 at 11:12 AM | link
This is a decision that most parents will never have to make, ever. I don't think anyone can really judge these people simply based on that fact. We can only imagine the emotions and turmoil if we were in their shoes. It's also very sad to think our society has become so obsessed with beauty and perfection that to let these conjoined twins have a chance would condem them to life as a "freak show".
- by Kellie on Jan 19, 2009 at 12:26 PM | link
You can't really say that you don't "understand" their choice, it's more about whether or not you "agree" with it. It comes down to their faith and hope (even denial) that this will come out ok. When you are a person of "faith" or "religious" or whatever you want to call it, you aren't willing to risk not being able to go to the heaven you believe in because you made a premature decision and if the chances of survival for the child are slim, then you still give birth and the rest is in "God's Hands".
I'm sure they don't feel selfish. Or feel like their child would be a freak show. Percentages and risks to them don't outweigh what they feel they can give to the child.
If the child doesn't survive birth, then this is a non-issue anyway.
- by SkeeterF on Jan 22, 2009 at 4:02 PM | link
"If the data suggest that the twins share all their vital organs and a single body, termination will likely be the only option. However, due to their personal religious beliefs (they are Roman Catholic), the Chamberlains still may not choose it." Perhaps this is too niggling, but if the Chamberlains do not choose termination, then clearly this is not their only option.
And I don't think that they necessarily, as Skeeter says, think that this will come out OK. I think they probably know that it won't. But they appear not to want to play God and take action to end their children's lives. I can't say what I would do in their shoes, but I suspect that I would do the same. FWIW, I am not Roman Catholic and never have been.
I really don't understand the argument that they should terminate because the babies have only a 20% chance of survival. That argument is really surreal. If they terminate, the babies will have 0% chance of survival. That's better?
"It's also very sad to think our society has become so obsessed with beauty and perfection that to let these conjoined twins have a chance would condem them to life as a 'freak show'." Totally agree.
- by Laura(southernxyl) on Jan 24, 2009 at 6:20 PM | link
Whoever says that this child should be "aborted" should see how they would feel in the same situation. Saying/doing that would be cruel and inhumane.
- by Max W on May 2, 2009 at 12:08 PM | link
Let them have the twins. If they die then they die. If they survive and live a life of being a 'freakshow' then oh well. They will probably be teased and harrassed, will be outcast from people who are afraid of them because they don't understand them. Will most likely never have any normal romantic relationships (can any NORMAL guy say he'd date conjoined twins?) or get married. There is only one body so even if a someone wanted to date one of them, when they got intimate they would still technically be having sex with the other twin. What if they ended up falling for that twin but they knew the first twin would get jealous? How do you cheat on a conjoined twin with the other twin? And when they have sex would it be considered a threesome...
I know some people may think these are weird questions to ask right now but ignoring them until they come up in the future is pointless. I get there are religious people who don't believe in abortion. That is their right. But if these parents are having the twins SIMPLY because they want kids after trying for so long, and are completely ignoring how it will effect the kids life then YES that is selfish.
- by melody on Oct 10, 2009 at 8:27 PM | link
I'm very conflicted. On one hand I thinkit is better to terminate the pregnancy and let the soul go back to God in cases like this; however, on the other I believe this too:
"...life is sacred because all life is from God and are made in God's image."
- by WASP on Oct 22, 2009 at 2:23 AM | link