Fetus in fetu and the concept of personhood

  • Thread starter Thread starter needmorelight
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
N

needmorelight

Guest
A few months ago while I was watching TV I came across a program (probably in Discovery Health channel) wherein they featured a case of a young boy who had an abnormal growth in his abdomen. Scans have shown that the growth is actually the boy’s own twin that, according to boy’s doctors, is growing parasitically inside him, a rare case called fetus-in-fetu (here’s a link reviewing the literature on fetus-in-fetu: pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/105/6/1335)). The boy was later operated on to remove his twin. When a doctor dissected the “abnormal growth”, it was shown that it had a head, hands, feet, and some other recognizable anatomical structures only that they were malformed and that the “twin” had no brain. The mother of the boy was then consoled by the doctor that performed the dissection in that the operation was not immoral since the “parasitic twin” would never really develop into a person.

At first, after watching the segment I thought that the operation wasn’t immoral but then lately I have been thinking about what we really mean by the term “person” or “human being”. I am against abortion and I believe that life starts at conception and right now I’m confused about this whole fetus-in-fetu thing. I have no doubts that this “abnormal growth” or twin definitely is human but I’m still not sure if it was not a person or a human being. That the twin is not viable, is a mass of tissue, doesn’t have a brain, is living parasitically, or that it doesn’t have self-awareness seems a lot like the arguments put forth by the abortion camp.

So my big question is: Was the “parasitic” twin a person (e.g., did it have a soul) and was it moral to remove it from its “host” twin? I would appreciate your thoughts and comments especially from those whose backgrounds are in the medical and developmental biology fields.
 
The brain died in a very early stage of development. The soul probably would have left the body when the brain died- as the brain gives the person it’s human side. It is a moral option to remove the child. The child would not live, and it would be extremely traumatizing on his twin brother if this wasn’t taken care of quickly.
 
That link has pictures…that may be disturbing for those who do not want to see it. When you give links about abortion and things like this, and they have pictures, please tell us if there are pictures in it.
 
Since there is no brain, it’s an open question whether a soul was ever infused into this life form. Assuming it was a fraternal twin with unique DNA then it was NOT just an abnormal growth on the boy. I’d say you need to err on the safe side of assuming that the child DID have a soul.

NOW, what to do? Well leaving the child inside his brother would certainly have long term harmful effects on the developed child. Eliminating the harmful effects wood be a moral good. Acheiving that moral good through the means of separating the two would be morally neutral. The death of the dependent child is morally negative. But the moral good desired is not acheived by directly killing the dependent brother, it is acheived by the separation. An undesired, but unavoidable consequence of the separation is the death of the dependent brother. We just don’t have the capability to save him. Since the dependent brother has no chance of further development, his tragic death as an undesired side effect of saving the healthy brother is acceptable under the principle of double effect.

At least that is how I would reason it. I only recently grasped this double effect principle and find it popping up a lot.

Still, it would be appropriate to treat the deceased child as a human person. Name him and bury him appropriately.

I wonder if the reasoning above applies to conjoined twins too. I’m not yet ready to say I have that one reasoned out.
 
My apologies for not posting viewer discretion about the photos. I have a zoology degree so I guess I wasn’t mindful as to how others would react.

The dependent twin is an identical, not a fraternal, twin of the host, which the article that I linked indicated. Nevertheless, I find manualman’s point on the act of separating the dependent child from its host twin a very insightful one.

I guess they aren’t any easy answers to these life and death, soul and personhood questions. Right now, I’m also struggling about human chimaeras and the ensoulment process but that would probably be another thread.
 
I’m in complete agreement with most people here…
  1. It was not a human person (at least, not now), and thus could be morally removed.
  2. Or even if it had been a human person, the removal is morally valid under the principles of double effect. Either way, though, it doesn’t appear to be a problem.
But since it didn’t have a brain, and really couldn’t live on its own at all…I’m thinking that it was definitely Option #1. You can check with an apologist/theologian, though, just to be sure. 🙂
 
They should do whatever it takes to have as little trauma as possible to the family- and to the child later on. If I was told that my child had it’s calcified twin growing on it’s spine, I would not want to see it, I would ask the medical staff to bury it, then leave it in their hands as to whether they actually do or not.
 
40.png
masterjedi747:
I’m in complete agreement with most people here…
  1. It was not a human person (at least, not now), and thus could be morally removed.
  2. Or even if it had been a human person, the removal is morally valid under the principles of double effect. Either way, though, it doesn’t appear to be a problem.
But since it didn’t have a brain, and really couldn’t live on its own at all…I’m thinking that it was definitely Option #1. You can check with an apologist/theologian, though, just to be sure. 🙂
Click to expand...
I am wary about the argument that since it didn’t have a brain, it wasn’t really a person in the first place. This utilitarian argument is exactly what pro-abortion people use in justifying their position. Also in the Terri Schiavo case (i.e., that so little of her brain was left that she is no longer a person). There are also other bizarre cases such as conjoined-parasitic twins united at the head wherein the dependent twin does have a brain that might possess some activity. (You can type parasitic twin at wikipedi but there is a photo in that article that can be really disturbing).

What is a human being and when does it begin are questions that are highly debated by the pro-abortion and the pro-life camps. There is no doubt that there are some pro-abortion sites in the web that have asked the same questions that I raised in the first post. Is it murder to remove the dependent twin (assuming it was a person)? Apparently not (thanks manualman). Was it really a person? That I still do not know.
 
Those who argue that the dependent brother didn’t have a brain means he was never a person would seem to set up a basis for early abortions (UID, secondary pill effect, morning after pill, etc). Since the church is clear on teaching those things are wrong, the brain must not be the factor.

Still, as noted above, this particular situation can be morally resolved.

I don’t think it right to gloss over the death of a child in the name of minimizing trauma, as suggested above. Better to deal with tragedy now than bury it only to risk having the grief fester subconsciously.

As an interesting side note, the fact that the child was an identical twin raises more questions. I don’t know the biology well enough to decide, but perhaps with identical DNA, no brain and other major deficiencies one could argue that the apparent dependent child never acheived a separate identity from the dominant child and is merely a mutation, a bizarre tumor. Lacking conclusive info, I’d err on the side of assuming sanctity of life.
 
I too found these stories on discovery very interesting and for the same reasons mentioned.

For the story on the parasitic conjoined twin, the parents actually are Catholic. After all was said and done they finally consulted their priest and were advised to name and bury their deceased daughter that had been separated from her twin. Until then, the doctors and reporters referred to these girls as “the two-headed baby.” Afterwards, they gave the deceased twin a little more respect.

In that case the morality was similar to any other conjoined twin case. When separating conjoined twins it is hoped that both would survive the separation. In that particular case they were separated, and the twin that had almost no functional body parts died shortly after the separation. She was allowed to die but was not euthanized. (I think she had been under anesthesia.) Morally, it was handled well. She had no chance of survival not conjoined and her sister would have died too while conjoined. Since the direct act was to separate the twins it was moral. The indirect result was the death of the twin.

The one that was hard for me was the fetus in fetu that showed on an ultra-sound. The mom got an ultra-sound and it showed the the fetus-in-fetu right there. Within a few days after birth the baby (boy) was operated on and they removed the fetus from inside him. They knew this baby was alive and had a heartbeat because they saw it on an ultra-sound. This one was hard for me since it was similar to the direct act being to separate the twins, but in this case the separation involved severing the umbilical cord. One child was “born” and the other was not. I still believe a little person died in each case. I just don’t know if this one was morally handled or not.

In the case of the much older boy, I think it was determined that his twin might have been a tumor and was autopsied to determine the truth. At the time of that twin’s removal it wasn’t even thought that it was a fetus in fetu. So the direct act was to remove a tumor. That it was actually a twin instead was an indirect tragedy. I was however, glad for the boy to finally be able to grow on his own and be accepted by his culture. Before his surgery, he was treated as an outcast for having the growth. It was thought he was somehow “bad luck.”

What a difficult world we live in.
 
40.png
needmorelight:
I am wary about the argument that since it didn’t have a brain, it wasn’t really a person in the first place. This utilitarian argument is exactly what pro-abortion people use in justifying their position. Also in the Terri Schiavo case (i.e., that so little of her brain was left that she is no longer a person).
Click to expand...
There’s a big difference between “losing your personhood” (which can really never happen as long as you’re alive) and never actually being a person in the first place. And in situations such as the Terri Schaivo case, there’s also a big difference between being brain-damaged and brain-dead. In particular, a brain-dead person is entirely dependent upon machines to survive, and will die almost instantly once those machines are removed (because their brain isn’t functioning at all)…whereas a brain-damaged person (such as Terri Schaivo) could still survive without machine assistance, and only requires basic food and water to survive (just like the rest of us).

I understand what you’re concerned about. And actually, upon further reconsideration, I would probably vote that the child WAS a human person. Think about it…we know that personhood begins at conception, with a fertilized egg. So unless I’m missing something, both of these twins were conceived seperately, correct? It was only during their subsequent development that the problems started happening. So the one twin became, for all intents and purposes, brain dead…only able to remain alive because it was attatched to it’s twin. Thus a valid medical procedure intended to preserve the life of one twin, which indirectly (but inevitably and unfortunately) beings about the death of the dependent twin, appears to be morally acceptable. So, to answer your original question, I would vote YES (it’s the safer vote anyway), and then add that to my long list of questions to ask God when I (hopefully) get to Heaven.
 
My adoptive mother actually had this same thing…She was 33 and she began hemmorrhaging. They removed a very large “tumor”, which turned out to be composed of an identical twin that had never developed, had never separated from her, but was completely internal .
She would have died if it had not been removed. The doctors told her then ( in the 1940’s), that this was rare, but not unheard of. The twin had just never become a separate person.
The problems showed up, when it began to grow inside her, threatening her life. There was really no choice but to remove it, at least in her case.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top