two headed baby

In article aAiVb.115596$U%5.596787@attbi_s03,
"Mom2Aries" wrote:

Read the article. Nothing can follow this little girl around, she died 7
hours after the operation

--
Cadie and Aries
| this is a total pander --- why do people have to see these pictures
| except for the usual pornographic reasons? think how this child is
| going to love this following her around for the rest of her life --
| pictures once publized are forever




and this is relevant because? presumably everyone hoped the baby would
survive -- and it is sad that she didn't -- to exploit her by
distributing these pictures is abusive IMHO -- would you really display
your child as a freak as was done in this case

Hope Munro Smith wrote in message ...

(St. Matthew) wrote:

What if the same thing happened to you? If it were me, God forbid,
there'd be no cameras in the nursery, that's for sure. It's not a
freak show.

http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=2500458

Unfortunately she didn't make it:

http://abcnews.go.com/wire/World/ap20040207_472.html


I send my condolences to the family.

Donna Metler wrote in message
...

[thar be snippage here...in regards to certain religious practices for
infants at birth]

One of the questions I was asked before labor was induced for Brian was
whether we wanted someone present to baptize him immediately after birth,
given that he was expected to be stillborne or live only a short time. We
decided against it, because in my religious training, baptism is a
contract
with the parents and the church, to bring up a child in a religious
manner,
and for a child who does not survive, the contract is meaningless.
Similarly, last rites would not have been appropriate, because a newborn
baby has no sins to forgive. (Another question I was asked, even though DH
and I are not Catholic). Only if you believe baptism is essential in a
child's admittance to heaven (a belief even the Catholic church has
largely
dismissed) would this be essential.

On a similar note, the Jewish mothers in my support group chose not to
have
their sons circumsized, although most had been asked about this ceremony.

I would have also declined because brit milah is supposed to occur on the
child's eighth day of life (although permission can be given to have it done
later, or delayed if a child is too ill for it at the time)...if either of
my sons were not expected to survive until then, it would have been
inappropriate for brit milah to take place.....just as you felt it was
inappropriate for your baby to have been baptized as an infant due to your
own religious practices.


My heart aches for this mother, who won't be given a chance to grieve in
peace, and who will be forever haunted with self-doubts and fears because
of
this incidence. Losing any child is hard, and losing one in such a public
way is at least doubly so.

Agreed. I think they made the best decision they could. Let the baby be
mourned in peace.

Leah



meh
--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

"dragonlady" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"geopelia" wrote:

"Deborah Terreson" wrote in message
...


----------
In article ,
(St. Matthew) wrote:


"toypup" wrote in message
news:EGRUb.240818$na.397528@attbi_s04...

In ,
St. Matthew wrote:

*What if the same thing happened to you?

I don't know what I'd really do in her parents' shoes. I do know I
didn't
immediately feel a bond with DS when he was born. I hear that's
normal. If
my child had two heads, it might freak me out too much and take me
much
longer to develop a bond. The second head moving its mouth while I
was
nursing would really bother me.


I'd be flooded with empathy for the little one. I'd also even have
feelings for the partially developed head because there is some
brain
activity detected there. It is a form of life, too, after all.

Yeah, I wondered about that too. But, as the doctors said, it was
growing
faster than the girl. It could very well kill her as it pushed into
her
brain and compressed it. Gotta go, rather than take the chance that
the
infant dies as well.

Deb.

Did the baby have an emergency baptism? If so, was the other head
baptized
also as a separate individual? This would matter to parents with
religious
beliefs.

No -- it would matter to parents with *specific* religious beliefs. To
some very deeply religious people, baptism is meaningless -- someting
done in someone else's religion -- even among Christians, there are many
who find infant baptism to be an unacceptable practice.

The question of whether the baby which didn't develop was a seperate
individual is for the parents and their religious leaders to decide. It
is not something that can be established as fact.

meh
--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

In one book on obstetrics (I forget which) it said that if there was doubt
about how many individuals there were, one should be baptized and the
other(s) baptized "conditionally".
Just how many infants can be conjoined? Have there ever been more than two?

Geopelia

In article ,
"geopelia" wrote:

"dragonlady" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"geopelia" wrote:

"Deborah Terreson" wrote in message
...


----------
In article ,
(St. Matthew) wrote:


"toypup" wrote in message
news:EGRUb.240818$na.397528@attbi_s04...

In ,
St. Matthew wrote:

*What if the same thing happened to you?

I don't know what I'd really do in her parents' shoes. I do know I
didn't
immediately feel a bond with DS when he was born. I hear that's
normal. If
my child had two heads, it might freak me out too much and take me
much
longer to develop a bond. The second head moving its mouth while I
was
nursing would really bother me.


I'd be flooded with empathy for the little one. I'd also even have
feelings for the partially developed head because there is some
brain
activity detected there. It is a form of life, too, after all.

Yeah, I wondered about that too. But, as the doctors said, it was
growing
faster than the girl. It could very well kill her as it pushed into
her
brain and compressed it. Gotta go, rather than take the chance that
the
infant dies as well.

Deb.

Did the baby have an emergency baptism? If so, was the other head
baptized
also as a separate individual? This would matter to parents with
religious
beliefs.

No -- it would matter to parents with *specific* religious beliefs. To
some very deeply religious people, baptism is meaningless -- someting
done in someone else's religion -- even among Christians, there are many
who find infant baptism to be an unacceptable practice.

The question of whether the baby which didn't develop was a seperate
individual is for the parents and their religious leaders to decide. It
is not something that can be established as fact.

meh
--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

In one book on obstetrics (I forget which) it said that if there was doubt
about how many individuals there were, one should be baptized and the
other(s) baptized "conditionally".
Just how many infants can be conjoined? Have there ever been more than two?

Geopelia




According to the articles I could find quickly, there are no modern,
credible stories of more than 2 conjoined multiples. However, there are
cases of more than one internal, encased multiples: people have had
surgery to find fully encased, partially developed multiples. These are
apparently a case of an identical twin (or triplet or quad or whatever)
who failed to develop but was somehow encapsulated inside their
surviving sibling's body.

meh
--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

"dragonlady" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"geopelia" wrote:

"dragonlady" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"geopelia" wrote:

"Deborah Terreson" wrote in message
...


----------
In article ,
(St. Matthew) wrote:


"toypup" wrote in message
news:EGRUb.240818$na.397528@attbi_s04...

In ,
St. Matthew wrote:

*What if the same thing happened to you?

I don't know what I'd really do in her parents' shoes. I do
know I
didn't
immediately feel a bond with DS when he was born. I hear
that's
normal. If
my child had two heads, it might freak me out too much and take
me
much
longer to develop a bond. The second head moving its mouth
while I
was
nursing would really bother me.


I'd be flooded with empathy for the little one. I'd also even
have
feelings for the partially developed head because there is some
brain
activity detected there. It is a form of life, too, after all.

Yeah, I wondered about that too. But, as the doctors said, it was
growing
faster than the girl. It could very well kill her as it pushed
into
her
brain and compressed it. Gotta go, rather than take the chance
that
the
infant dies as well.

Deb.

Did the baby have an emergency baptism? If so, was the other head
baptized
also as a separate individual? This would matter to parents with
religious
beliefs.

No -- it would matter to parents with *specific* religious beliefs.
To
some very deeply religious people, baptism is meaningless -- someting
done in someone else's religion -- even among Christians, there are
many
who find infant baptism to be an unacceptable practice.

The question of whether the baby which didn't develop was a seperate
individual is for the parents and their religious leaders to decide.
It
is not something that can be established as fact.

meh
--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you
care

In one book on obstetrics (I forget which) it said that if there was
doubt
about how many individuals there were, one should be baptized and the
other(s) baptized "conditionally".
Just how many infants can be conjoined? Have there ever been more than
two?

Geopelia




According to the articles I could find quickly, there are no modern,
credible stories of more than 2 conjoined multiples. However, there are
cases of more than one internal, encased multiples: people have had
surgery to find fully encased, partially developed multiples. These are
apparently a case of an identical twin (or triplet or quad or whatever)
who failed to develop but was somehow encapsulated inside their
surviving sibling's body.

meh
--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

I'll have to look it up.
The Dionne quins are interesting, all apparently from one embryo that split
in various ways.
Very sad the way they were treated though, and incredible that they all
survived with the rather primitive medicine of those days.
Geopelia

--
Cadie and Aries
"Jenn" wrote in message
...
| In article aAiVb.115596$U%5.596787@attbi_s03,
| "Mom2Aries" wrote:
|
| Read the article. Nothing can follow this little girl around, she died
7
| hours after the operation
|
| --
| Cadie and Aries
| | this is a total pander --- why do people have to see these pictures
| | except for the usual pornographic reasons? think how this child is
| | going to love this following her around for the rest of her life --
| | pictures once publized are forever
|
|
|
|
| and this is relevant because? presumably everyone hoped the baby would
| survive -- and it is sad that she didn't -- to exploit her by
| distributing these pictures is abusive IMHO -- would you really display
| your child as a freak as was done in this case


Because everyone was responding to the article, saying those pictures will
follow the little girl around forever... showing that they had not read it.
IMO, the whole thread could have been shortened and wouldn't have driven
some people crazy if anyone would have just READ the article they were
responding to, which said, on top of the picture, that the little girl died
after surgery.

I think it's funny (and slightly annoying) how people are going to argue
over a point that is completely invalid, IE. how the little girl will feel
having those pictures taken and publicized. And I also don't see how it's
any of your (a collective your) business what these people allowed in the
papers.

How was she displayed as a freak? I don't recall any of the headlines
stating "Come look at the 2 headed freak baby". It was an article about a
rare medical occurrence, without pictures to document it's truth, it goes in
the garbage never to be looked at again, and forgotten... or never believed
in the first place. It's not like they put the pictures up in a tabloid,
like some people have done.

In 8StWb.8573$uV3.18726@attbi_s51,
Mom2Aries wrote:

*responding to, which said, on top of the picture, that the little girl died
*after surgery.

Well, no. When I originally read the article, they were preparing for
surgery. Just because you are one of the rare few who jumped in late after
the poor baby had already died is no reason to start telling the rest of
us what is or is not appropriate to argue about or discuss. But that's
just my personal opinion.

Flame on,
h.


--
hillary israeli vmd http://www.hillary.net
"uber vaccae in quattuor partes divisum est."
not-so-newly minted veterinarian-at-large

| Well, no. When I originally read the article, they were preparing for
| surgery. Just because you are one of the rare few who jumped in late after
| the poor baby had already died is no reason to start telling the rest of
| us what is or is not appropriate to argue about or discuss. But that's
| just my personal opinion.
|
| Flame on,
| h.


I apologize, I wasn't aware that I was flaming. I also wasn't aware that a
news website would use the same link for two entirely different news
articles. Any other website would use a new link for the follow up so that
the first article could be archived and still be accessed. But if that's
not the case here, than I am sorry... my fault. Just seems odd.

In article 8StWb.8573$uV3.18726@attbi_s51,
"Mom2Aries" wrote:

--
Cadie and Aries
"Jenn" wrote in message
...
| In article aAiVb.115596$U%5.596787@attbi_s03,
| "Mom2Aries" wrote:
|
| Read the article. Nothing can follow this little girl around, she died
7
| hours after the operation
|
| --
| Cadie and Aries
| | this is a total pander --- why do people have to see these pictures
| | except for the usual pornographic reasons? think how this child is
| | going to love this following her around for the rest of her life --
| | pictures once publized are forever
|
|
|
|
| and this is relevant because? presumably everyone hoped the baby would
| survive -- and it is sad that she didn't -- to exploit her by
| distributing these pictures is abusive IMHO -- would you really display
| your child as a freak as was done in this case


Because everyone was responding to the article, saying those pictures will
follow the little girl around forever... showing that they had not read it.
IMO, the whole thread could have been shortened and wouldn't have driven
some people crazy if anyone would have just READ the article they were
responding to, which said, on top of the picture, that the little girl died
after surgery.

I think it's funny (and slightly annoying) how people are going to argue
over a point that is completely invalid, IE. how the little girl will feel
having those pictures taken and publicized. And I also don't see how it's
any of your (a collective your) business what these people allowed in the
papers.

that points was posted BEFORE the surgery and before she died --

How was she displayed as a freak? I don't recall any of the headlines
stating "Come look at the 2 headed freak baby". It was an article about a
rare medical occurrence, without pictures to document it's truth, it goes in
the garbage never to be looked at again, and forgotten... or never believed
in the first place. It's not like they put the pictures up in a tabloid,
like some people have done.

people 'interested' in these pictures are disgusting -- it is nothing
but porn -- of course they were in the tabloids and all over the news --
where was the 'need to know' how was anyone's life improved by getting
to look at the freak? bad behavior all around. [I give the parents a
pass here because they were probably exploited by the press]