This is new to me! "Reducing" twins...

[Magpie]

This article was in my newspaper today...

Like so many other couples these days, the Torontoarea business executive and her husband put off having children for years as they built successful careers. Both parents were in their 40s -- and their first son just over a year old -- when this spring the woman became pregnant a second time. Seven weeks in, an ultrasound revealed the Burlington, Ont., resident was carrying twins.

"It came as a complete shock," said the mother, who asked not to be named. "We're both career people. If we were going to have three children two years apart, someone else was going to be raising our kids. ... All of a sudden our lives as we know them and as we like to lead them, are not going to happen."

She soon discovered another option: doctors could "reduce" the pregnancy from twins to a singleton through a little-known procedure that eliminates selected fetuses -- and has become increasingly common in the past two decades amid a boom in the number of multiple pregnancies.

Selective reductions are typically carried out for women pregnant with triplets or greater, where the risk of harm or death climbs sharply with each additional fetus. The Ontario couple is part of what some experts say is a growing demand for reducing twins to one, fuelled more by socioeconomic imperatives than medical need, and raising vexing new ethical questions.

***snipped for space*** The full article is here:

http://www2.canada.com/ottawacitize....html?id=5287736b-360d-4938-863b-d0cde7c08b23

I don't like this. On a fundamental, gut level, I hate it.

Children don't come with guarantees. When you choose to procreate, you're rolling the dice. Reducing multiples for convenience or economic reasons or any reason other than life, death or severe injury, feels morally wrong to me. If it has to be done for medical reasons, that's another issue altogether. It's sad and tragic, but I can understand why it may be necessary sometimes.

Here's the rest of that woman's story:

In the medical community, the morality of the procedure -- at least in its most controversial context -- still seems a touchy matter. When the Burlington woman decided she wanted to reduce from two fetuses to one, her family physician at first claimed the procedure was illegal in Canada, then tried to talk her out of it, saying "you don't need to worry, you can stay home with the kids."

Most obstetrician-gynecologists she and her husband contacted wanted no part of a twin reduction. They were about to use Dr. Evans' New York clinic, where the procedure and related tests would have cost at least $8,000, when they discovered a physician at Sunnybrook would do the reduction, funded by medicare.

"I do believe people should have the choice, given the cost of raising children today," she said.

"You want to be able to provide for your children ... to give them the things they need to become the best adults they can become."

I think everyone wants to be able to provide for their kids, but I don't see why the "cost of raising children today" should have any impact whether or not people "have the choice" to reduce their pregnancies. Either it's always right, and people should always be able to choose this (like bunnies - who actually CAN quite naturally reduce the size of their litters when they're under stress). Or it's always wrong, in which case, economics shouldn't have any bearing on it.

Otherwise we could argue that there are two standards of morality - one for times of plenty, and one for times of economic stress.

 

[krcit]

Makes me sick.

 

[lacrosse_lady72]

This article was in my newspaper today...



I don't like this. On a fundamental, gut level, I hate it.

Children don't come with guarantees. When you choose to procreate, you're rolling the dice. Reducing multiples for convenience or economic reasons or any reason other than life, death or severe injury, feels morally wrong to me. If it has to be done for medical reasons, that's another issue altogether. It's sad and tragic, but I can understand why it may be necessary sometimes.

Here's the rest of that woman's story:



I think everyone wants to be able to provide for their kids, but I don't see why the "cost of raising children today" should have any impact whether or not people "have the choice" to reduce their pregnancies. Either it's always right, and people should always be able to choose this (like bunnies - who actually CAN quite naturally reduce the size of their litters when they're under stress). Or it's always wrong, in which case, economics shouldn't have any bearing on it.

Otherwise we could argue that there are two standards of morality - one for times of plenty, and one for times of economic stress.

Interesting and disturbing at the same time. I guess if she really wants to and it's legal, then there's nothing to be done about it (yet). I understand, like in the article says, when it's many more multiples and the risk of death is increased,... but to reduce from 2 to 1 is very selfish. You're saying, well I only want one because well... the second one will be too inconvenient. At the least, put one of them up for adoption.

I kind of want to punch that woman.

 

[pilesoflaundry]

I could not and would not reduce twins. It's too risky to me to lose the other one.

I think adopting out the other twin is worse than selectively reducing it. How will that child feel when they grow up and realize they were part of a set and they were the unchosen half.

Anything over that, I would seriously consider it. My dh would not though. So it would be something that would cause a rift. Thankfully I am not having any more and never spontaniously became pregnant with quads or something.

 

[Freyja]

Interesting. Nothing I cam imagine ever doing myself.

But hey, I haven´t wanted an abortion for myself either, but I´m all for them being legal. So I guess that should go for this too!

 

[AKL_Megs]

It's the same thing as abortion. Surely you've heard of that before.

A woman "decides" she doesn't want/need/can't afford/whatever a child. In this case, a woman "decides" she doesn't want/need/can't afford/whatever multiple children.

Same process, different circumstances.

 

[robinb]

I personally wouldn't have a selective reduction for twins, but would have considered it for higher multiples. Common infertility treatments (like Clomid, IRRC) result in multiple fetuses. Reducing the number of fetuses that a woman carries means a healthier pregnancy for the woman and a better chance for the remaining fetuses. Women were not designed to give birth to a litter of puppies like a dog.

 

[pearlieq]

I can't see doing it for twins unless there's real risk to the mother's health or a health issue with one of the babies.

For higher order multiples, I'm very grateful I was never in the position of having to decide what to do. That's all I can say about that.

 

[Carly_Roach]

This article was in my newspaper today...

I don't like this. On a fundamental, gut level, I hate it.

Children don't come with guarantees. When you choose to procreate, you're rolling the dice. Reducing multiples for convenience or economic reasons or any reason other than life, death or severe injury, feels morally wrong to me. If it has to be done for medical reasons, that's another issue altogether. It's sad and tragic, but I can understand why it may be necessary sometimes.

Here's the rest of that woman's story:

I think everyone wants to be able to provide for their kids, but I don't see why the "cost of raising children today" should have any impact whether or not people "have the choice" to reduce their pregnancies. Either it's always right, and people should always be able to choose this (like bunnies - who actually CAN quite naturally reduce the size of their litters when they're under stress). Or it's always wrong, in which case, economics shouldn't have any bearing on it.

Otherwise we could argue that there are two standards of morality - one for times of plenty, and one for times of economic stress.

Morality has always had more than one standard. Just look at the morality of lying. It's OK to lie if the truth would hurt someone. And morals ARE morphed when it comes to economic stress, IE: we have less of a problem with a woman stealing food to feed her family than we'd have with a man robbing a bank to feed his family. Stealing is stealing, isn't it? We apply situational ethics to events all day long, so situational ethics (or morality, if you will) is a given and will be morphed.

Having said that I will say I'm uncomfortable with the idea of reducing twins for any reason other than medical necessity. I wouldn't do that myself.

But, as I believe that each person has the right to live their life as they see fit, and as I agree with our government that a human being isn't a human being until they become a tax deduction, and as I feel that any soul that is supposed to be born WILL be born regardless of which body it chooses to inhabit, it is not my place to judge this woman nor the medical community that offers this practice.

Interesting article, though.

 

[joviroxx]

Im not a proponent of abortion but have come to accept its place in our society. This, however, I cannot compare with abortion. Again, this is my opinion. While abortions come from an "oops" kind of situation, I cannot accept the idea that you purposely get pregnant and then "reduce" or "terminate" because the results are not what you like. I DO believe its a human life and as such we need to make decision to procreate with that in mind.

I think these actions affect society and our morality as a whole. Although we may be different and share different values, there is something to be said to a collectively moral society. So, I WILL judge and WILL opine on this practice. I think its awful.

 

[lacrosse_lady72]

I think adopting out the other twin is worse than selectively reducing it. How will that child feel when they grow up and realize they were part of a set and they were the unchosen half.

You would rather not be here at all over having hurt feelings? I know it's definitely not the case for me, or for pretty much any adopted kid. I'd definitely would have rather been put up for adoption over never been born.

But I think this is different than abortion, in this instance. The mother is still going to have a birth, so it's not about issues in birth, it's only because she doesn't want two more child. I know you didn't mention abortion but these issues seem to go hand in hand. The difference is with an abortion, there are legit (debatable, I know) reasons why people have abortions where as what this woman is doing is purely selfish.

 

[Northstar]

Something's really shady in the report of what actually happened... how does a Canadian get a procedure funded by Medicare in the US? Also, how does anyone get a non-medically-required pregnancy reduction like this funded by Medicare?

Oh well, the reporter may have gotten that part wrong.

I think this was a truly disgusting reason to seek a pregnancy reduction, but I don't think the law should ever try to make it illegal to do something based on WHY you want to do it. Because then people will just lie about why they want it, and you'll get doctors lying about whether it's medically necessary or not. ("medically necessary for the mother's mental health" will become the unprovable reason put on the paperwork.)

 

[pilesoflaundry]

You would rather not be here at all over having hurt feelings? I know it's definitely not the case for me, or for pretty much any adopted kid. I'd definitely would have rather been put up for adoption over never been born.

But I think this is different than abortion, in this instance. The mother is still going to have a birth, so it's not about issues in birth, it's only because she doesn't want two more child. I know you didn't mention abortion but these issues seem to go hand in hand. The difference is with an abortion, there are legit (debatable, I know) reasons why people have abortions where as what this woman is doing is purely selfish.

I have no idea to be honest. I am here so I can't say how I would feel if I was not here because then I would not be here to feel . I right now in a hypothetical situation, yes I would rather never be born then separated from my siblings and to feel unwanted. For reasons I can't go into on the internet, it creates more than just basic hurt feelings to know your other siblings were chosen over you.

I think twins have a special bond and either keep them together or don't have them. I personally would feel worse as a mother separating them. It's something I could not live with doing.

It's a lot harder to hand over a baby then to reduce a fetus. It's just different, it's always going to be very different. For some handing over a baby is easier than reducing. For others reducing is easier.

 

[deegack]

Her body her decision. I personally wouldn't reduce twins, but before we underwent fertility treatment DH and I had a long conversation about what we would do if we ended up with high order multiples. However, our clinic is very conservative and less then 15% of pregnancies are twins, less then 5% are triplets. So fertility treatments if done correctly does not mean multiples.


Now if you go to your OB after trying for two months and get some clomid and no monitoring, well, then you're just asking for multiples.

 

[Handbag Lady]

Wow. I agree with wanting to punch the mother in the face.



But I had to think about it. I think abortion should remain legal for varied and many reasons, but birth control isn't one of them. My gut tells me this couple shouldn't have the second child. If two more would be a burden on their lifestyle, wouldn't one ALSO be a burden?

 

[snowywhite89]

Selective reduction has been used for high order multiples for many years. This is the first time I have heard about it for twins.

Not something I would do but then I also would never use fertility drugs that result in high order multiples.

 

[Acklander]

I put it in the same category as abortion. It's between a woman, her doctor, and her partner.
For medical reasons, I wouldn't be able to carry twins so I would consider reduction as the lesser or 2 evils. I can't imagine anyone would be excited about having the procedure done and I would imagine it's a heartbreaking decision to make. But sometimes people have to make sad decisions. It's not my place to judge.

 

[5lilfish]

I can't see doing it for twins unless there's real risk to the mother's health or a health issue with one of the babies.

For higher order multiples, I'm very grateful I was never in the position of having to decide what to do. That's all I can say about that.

Ditto!

When my kids were 6, 7, and 9 yrs old, I decided that I really wanted a 4th child. I talked my husband into it and...Twins! I was instantly thrilled because my fear was having a big age gap and one child being raised alone. So, obviously this story doesn't exactly apply to me....but, having twins (now 3 yrs old), I just cannot express how great it is. The bond between my girls is so amazing...beautiful. I cannot imagine having made the choice to not have one of them. I just completely cannot imagine it.....unless, as stated above, it was a matter of saving my life or one of their lives. Thank God I didn't have to make that choice.

What would you tell the twin you kept? If you didn't tell them, how could the secret not haunt you? How could you look at that child and not think of the baby you chose not to have?...the baby that would be the same age, going through the same stages. How painful would that be?

Jess

 

[DWGal210]

My question is : if they only wanted 1 child, why not just adopt?! My opinion but if you're using infertility treaments but don't want multiples, that might not be the best idea for you. There are plenty of kids who need a good home - and if they are both working professionals, and paying for treaments, adoption costs wouldn't be an issue.

 

[lacrosse_lady72]

I have no idea to be honest. I am here so I can't say how I would feel if I was not here because then I would not be here to feel . I right now in a hypothetical situation, yes I would rather never be born then separated from my siblings and to feel unwanted. For reasons I can't go into on the internet, it creates more than just basic hurt feelings to know your other siblings were chosen over you.

I think twins have a special bond and either keep them together or don't have them. I personally would feel worse as a mother separating them. It's something I could not live with doing.

It's a lot harder to hand over a baby then to reduce a fetus. It's just different, it's always going to be very different. For some handing over a baby is easier than reducing. For others reducing is easier.

Well, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree... as the cliche goes. But, if you're born and given up for adoption, you have a choice of living with unwanted feelings and killing yourself. Option one, you're alive and to me that's great! Option two, well... at least you got the choice, and you're now in the same boat of never being born. But not being born, well the decision was made for you, bummer.