two headed baby

geopelia wrote:


Is ultrasound not part of the free antenatal medical care in U.S. public
hospitals?


What "free" antenatal medical care? We don't *have*
free medical care in the US, unless you count a few programs
available to the very poor.

Surely it would be routine today.


Neither the ACOG (American College of Obstetricians and
Gynecologists) nor the governing bodies in most countries
support routine prenatal ultrasound. Studies do not show
that it improves outcomes. Nevertheless, most OBs do a
routine mid-trimester u/s. For my part, I made it through
the better part of three pregnancies, having not had any
medical indication for an u/s until the end of the third
pregnancy.


As for "advising" a woman with a grossly defective foetus to abort, wouldn't
that be a doctor's duty?


Why would it be? It is the caregiver's obligation to
present options and their likely consequences, but it is the
patient's right and responsibility to make the ultimate
decision.


Best wishes,
Ericka

In article ,
Jenn wrote:

In article ,
"geopelia" wrote:

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

In article ,
Jenn wrote:

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]



I would disagree with this. Some of us have a long standing interest in
all subjects ralated to twinning -- and that includes what causes both
fraternal and identical twinning, and all of the variations that can
occur with both. That means we are interested in conjoined twins, and
that includes parasitic twins. I don't think that's pornographic -- but
then, I seldom find any picture of what a real person looks like
pornographic. This baby was a real person -- and that's really what
she looked like.

meh


well you will be happy to know then that there are whole books that will
allow you to look at people, fetuses etc with birth defects and
deformities -- they are published for the non scientist because of the
tremendous need for 'interested people' to get a look at something sad
and weird

The internet sites and books intended for medical persons are better, they
give the scientific facts as well as the pictures. They are published to
help and educate, not for shock value.
I would advise a pregnant woman not to look at them. It can't possibly
affect her baby, but it may affect her peace of mind.
Today with ultrasound many defects can be discovered early and appropriate
action taken. How was this condition missed for this unfortunate baby?
Doesn't her country have ultrasound?

Geopelia



ultrasound rarely results in any real options -- and routine ultrasound
is a huge waste of medical resources in a poor country [or in a rich one
that spends lots on some people and little on others more needy]

what appropriate option? the only option was aborting the defective
fetus or hoping for the best with surgery after birth --

I have to agree with this -- almost. There ARE times when ultrasound
shows a condition that can be corrected in utero, or that requires a
specific approach to the delivery of the baby for the baby to survive.

However, I turned down ultrasound (18 years ago) because they were just
becoming routine, and I couldn't imagine any particular reason to do
one. If I hadn't turned it down, maybe I would have known I was
carrying twins BEFORE the first one was born . . . I'm not sure what
benefit there would have been to that, except I'd have know WHY I was so
extraordinarily tired!

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

In article , geopelia says...




Is ultrasound not part of the free antenatal medical care in U.S. public
hospitals? Surely it would be routine today.

Not necessarily - recently it's been considered a cost without enough benefit to
justify it routinely.

As for "advising" a woman with a grossly defective foetus to abort, wouldn't
that be a doctor's duty?

Why?? The physician's duty is to determine the facts and describe the options
and their associated risks and benefits

She couldn't be forced to do so of course, but she
could be helped to see that it is the right thing to do.
Think of the baby as a real person, and consider what kind of life it would
have. Doctors may congratulate themselves on performing medical miracles,
but the patient has to live with the consequences.

This particular infant did IIRC have a good prognosis for the future if she had
survived the surgery. So, the baby as a real person, is a person with a problem
to repair, and a long normal life ahead. Pretty good consequences.

Banty

On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 14:29:32 +1300, "geopelia"
wrote:

s ultrasound not part of the free antenatal medical care in U.S. public
hospitals? Surely it would be routine today.

One, what US Public Hospitals?

Two, the woman is not from the US, but from the Dominican Republic.
Did you actually read the article?


--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits

"Nan" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 14:29:32 +1300, "geopelia"
wrote:


"Nan" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 11:06:27 +1300, "geopelia"
wrote:

With a seriously defective foetus, the mother would be advised to have
an
abortion, but it is her choice.

I'd have to seriously wonder about any doctor that would "advise" a
woman to abort a baby. Presenting it as an option, maybe. But
definitely not advise her.

Surely ultrasound would have picked up the second head?

More than likely, but given the economics of the family (about $200
monthly household income), it's not obvious that it was even an
option. Many women in the US don't have ultrasounds due to the cost.

Is there any better way than ultrasound for discovering serious
defects
before birth?

Well, yes. Other tests are better, imo, but invasive and also
expensive.

Nan

Is ultrasound not part of the free antenatal medical care in U.S. public
hospitals? Surely it would be routine today.

"free antenatal medical care"??? I've never known anyone that got
free antenatal medical care, save for women on Medicaid, and even then
some tests cost the patient money. People in the US pay insurance
premiums as well as co-payments for medical care. Nothing is free.

You Americans have an election coming up. Isn't this something you should be
looking at? Make your politicians do something about it. All maternity care
should be free. What happens to mothers who don't have the money for
insurance and doctors' bills?
Having a baby is expensive enough providing clothes and other items, and
taking time off work, without having to pay
for antematal care and delivery as well.
You lead the world in so many ways, why neglect this important matter?


As far as "routine", there is no earthly reason to have a "routine"
ultrasound during pregnancy. It does nothing to improve outcomes, and
is a waste of money and resources unless there is a medically based
reason for having the test.

As for "advising" a woman with a grossly defective foetus to abort,
wouldn't
that be a doctor's duty? She couldn't be forced to do so of course, but
she
could be helped to see that it is the right thing to do.

No, I wouldn't think it would be a doctor's duty to advise a woman to
abort. He/she can present it as an option, and help the woman to
research the potential consequences. It's not a doctor's place to
convince anyone that it would be the "right" thing to do.

Think of the baby as a real person, and consider what kind of life it
would
have. Doctors may congratulate themselves on performing medical miracles,
but the patient has to live with the consequences.

This is why I said the above.

Nan

"geopelia" wrote in message
...

"Nan" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 11:06:27 +1300, "geopelia"
wrote:

With a seriously defective foetus, the mother would be advised to have
an
abortion, but it is her choice.

I'd have to seriously wonder about any doctor that would "advise" a
woman to abort a baby. Presenting it as an option, maybe. But
definitely not advise her.

Surely ultrasound would have picked up the second head?

More than likely, but given the economics of the family (about $200
monthly household income), it's not obvious that it was even an
option. Many women in the US don't have ultrasounds due to the cost.

Is there any better way than ultrasound for discovering serious defects
before birth?

Well, yes. Other tests are better, imo, but invasive and also
expensive.

Nan

Is ultrasound not part of the free antenatal medical care in U.S. public
hospitals? Surely it would be routine today.
As for "advising" a woman with a grossly defective foetus to abort,
wouldn't
that be a doctor's duty? She couldn't be forced to do so of course, but
she
could be helped to see that it is the right thing to do.
Think of the baby as a real person, and consider what kind of life it
would
have. Doctors may congratulate themselves on performing medical miracles,
but the patient has to live with the consequences.

Geopelia

One ultrasound, fairly soon before birth to make sure the baby is in
position, too late to abort regardless. Early ultrasounds are really only
done if there is a fairly high probability of complications-or if the mother
has good medical insurance and wants them. And the level of the ultrasound
makes a big difference. The level 1 ultrasound done in most doctors offices
and clinics only shows the most gross features. In order to get into detail,
a level 3 or 4 ultrasound (which actually allows some viewing of internal
organs-the images are rather scary-you can see every bone of the skeleton!)
is needed-which requires very expensive equipment and very particular
training, but, in the hands of a good practitioner, can identify many of the
more common conditions pretty definitively. And, since some of the
conditions which can be identified can now be treated in-utero, if you have
a genetic history of the condition, it is worth checking out.

Amniocentisis and CVS wouldn't have picked this up, regardless-both deal
with genetic material, and twinning is not a chromosomal abnormality.

On 11 Feb 2004 21:11:37 -0800, Banty wrote:

Why?? The physician's duty is to determine the facts and describe
the options and their associated risks and benefits

In many cases, I can look up the options and the associated risks and
benefits for myself. So in addition to that recitation of available
facts, I want my doctor's recommendation, where he or she feels there is
a clear one that can be made. If the option/risk/benefit discussion
does not end with a 'and under the circumstances, I recommend that we
try this and here's my reasoning', I will ask for a recommendation.

This is another opportunity to have a productive discussion between us,
to help me focus my own research, and helps, frankly, to either confirm
for me that I've hired the right medical professionals (is the
recommendation well supported, even if I opt for a different choice?),
or to help point me toward a decision to make a change.

This particular infant did IIRC have a good prognosis for the future
if she had survived the surgery. So, the baby as a real person, is a
person with a problem to repair, and a long normal life ahead. Pretty
good consequences.

It sounds like it, for this baby. I would hope that a doctor would feel
comfortable enough to recommend termination, where the baby has a defect
incompatible with life. Not badger, mind you, but recommend.

In article ,
"geopelia" wrote:

"Nan" wrote in message
...

Is ultrasound not part of the free antenatal medical care in U.S. public
hospitals? Surely it would be routine today.

"free antenatal medical care"??? I've never known anyone that got
free antenatal medical care, save for women on Medicaid, and even then
some tests cost the patient money. People in the US pay insurance
premiums as well as co-payments for medical care. Nothing is free.

You Americans have an election coming up. Isn't this something you should be
looking at? Make your politicians do something about it. All maternity care
should be free. What happens to mothers who don't have the money for
insurance and doctors' bills?

They either get no prenatal care or very little. Then, if something
DOES go wrong that could have been handled with better prenatal care,
they get criticised for not getting better prenatal care.

In theory, people either have insurance (through their jobs) or are poor
enough to qulify for Medicaid. In reality, there are many, many working
poor who have neither.

Having a baby is expensive enough providing clothes and other items, and
taking time off work, without having to pay
for antematal care and delivery as well.
You lead the world in so many ways, why neglect this important matter?

At least in my case, you're preaching to the choir.

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

In article , Kathy Cole says...

On 11 Feb 2004 21:11:37 -0800, Banty wrote:

Why?? The physician's duty is to determine the facts and describe
the options and their associated risks and benefits



This particular infant did IIRC have a good prognosis for the future
if she had survived the surgery. So, the baby as a real person, is a
person with a problem to repair, and a long normal life ahead. Pretty
good consequences.

It sounds like it, for this baby. I would hope that a doctor would feel
comfortable enough to recommend termination, where the baby has a defect
incompatible with life. Not badger, mind you, but recommend.

I don't understand the need for a recommendation even in that case. In that
case, the facts and options that that physician would lay out for the pt would
be pretty stark. The patient would much more likely go for a decision to
terminate in that case. But her and her family's values still come to play.

Banty

geopelia wrote:

You Americans have an election coming up. Isn't this something you should be
looking at? Make your politicians do something about it. All maternity care
should be free. What happens to mothers who don't have the money for
insurance and doctors' bills?
Having a baby is expensive enough providing clothes and other items, and
taking time off work, without having to pay
for antematal care and delivery as well.
You lead the world in so many ways, why neglect this important matter?


There is no such thing as a free lunch sister. What you are advocating
is another way of robbing men to pay women. Go pound sand.

Bob



--

When did we divide into sides?

"As president, I will put American government and our legal system back
on the side of women." John Kerry, leading Democratic candidate for
President. http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/women/