« No guarantee | Main | Norman baits »
October 31, 2006
Spit, rinse, repeat
I share Margaret Wente’s confusion about the media treatment of the Vancouver conjoined twins, which amounted to a giant “awwwww” when "pity and sorrow," in her words, might have been more appropriate. I certainly do not share her contention that “we need to face the fact that not all babies are worth saving, even if we could afford to do it.” We can afford to, just for starters.
She starts out reasonably enough:
Ten out of 10 people interviewed for this story said that, if it had happened to them, they would have terminated the pregnancy.
From time to time, I've argued against the growing trend of terminating pregnancies because of minor fetal defects (such as deafness or a club foot). The sharing of a brain is not a minor defect. Sure, some conjoined twins, when separated, do quite well. But craniopagus twins are different. …most such people — mercifully small in number — are destined for (truncated) lives on the margins of society.
This distinction between preventive abortion for deafness or club feet and that for “a shared brain” is obvious, though unquantifiable. But I lose the plot somewhat here:
Did anyone suggest to Ms. Simms [the twins' mother] that, for the sake of her family, proceeding with the pregnancy (she learned of the twins' condition at 20 weeks) might not be such a hot idea?
Instead of being portrayed as feckless (a reasonable interpretation, under the circumstances) [yikes -ed.], Ms. Simms has been depicted as a model of maternal love, courageously prepared to take on whatever fate has in store. Except that she won't have to. That will be up to the state, which will inevitably step in when she can't cope. The state will also pick up the bills.
And completely here:
Developed nations around the world are wrestling with the ethics and stunningly high costs of trying to save seriously premature infants, who (if they survive) have a high chance of developing severe mental or physical handicaps. They're God's children, too. But, sometimes, it's more merciful to let nature take its course.
What we have here is two totally separate issues. The choice with “seriously premature infants,” as Wente puts it, is between exhaustive medical procedures with little chance of success, and either passive or active euthanasia. Ceasing all medical treatment save anesthesia can reasonably be viewed as letting nature take its course. You could do the same with the conjoined twins.
But Wente was previously drawing a distinction between abortions for different kinds of “defective” fetuses. To put it bluntly, going in for an ultrasound, finding you're carrying two fetuses joined at the head, and then vacuuming those fetuses out and disposing of them is pretty much the exact opposite of letting nature take its course. I think Wente should probably have just stuck with "I do not think that anyone in authority had the right to tell Ms. Simms what to do," a point she did actually make in the midst of this otherwise unfortunate piece. This would have avoided her suggesting that two newborns in a very perilous situation might be much better off dead.
Posted by Chris Selley at October 31, 2006 08:25 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.tartcider.com/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/557
Comments
Appalling stuff. I cancelled my Globe subscription today.
Posted by: Sean at November 1, 2006 01:33 PM
Yeah, ugly article.
Posted by: lk at November 2, 2006 07:44 PM