Is there Such Thing as Conjoined Twins?
Yes there's a such thing as conjoined twins, why do you think there's a term for it? To expand on that rhetorical question, conjoined twins (also known as Siamese twins) are identical twins whose bodies are joined in utero. A rare phenomenon, the occurrence is estimated to range from 1 in 50,000 births to 1 in 100,000 births, with a somewhat higher incidence in Southwest Asia and Africa. Approximately half are stillborn, and a smaller fraction of pairs born alive have abnormalities incompatible with life. The overall survival rate for conjoined twins is approximately 25%. The condition is more frequently found among females, with a ratio of 3:1.Two contradicting theories exist to explain the origins of conjoined twins. The older theory is fission, in which the fertilized egg splits partially. The second and more generally accepted theory is fusion, in which a fertilized egg completely separates, but stem cells (which search for similar cells) find like-stem cells on the other twin and fuse the twins together. Conjoined twins share a single common chorion, placenta, and amniotic sac, although these characteristics are not exclusive to conjoined twins as there are some monozygotic but non-conjoined twins that also share these structures in utero.The most famous pair of conjoined twins was Chang and Eng Bunker (1811–1874), Thai brothers born in Siam, now Thailand. They traveled with P.T. Barnum's circus for many years and were billed as the Siamese Twins. Chang and Eng were joined by a band of flesh, cartilage, and their fused livers at the torso. In modern times, they could have been easily separated.Due to the brothers' fame and the rarity of the condition, the term "Siamese twins" came to be used as a synonym for conjoined twins
That would depend very much on the specific circumstances. If there was a good chance that both would survive if left as they were, and that any attempt to separate them would carry a risk that one or both would die, then it would be unethical to separate them.On the other hand, there have been cases where leaving them conjoined would lead to one dying, followed by the other, and where separation would give at least one a much better chance of survival. In those cases, I would consider it ethical to do the surgery.That being said, I fully understand why some parents would balk at the idea of sacrificing one child’s life for another. Ultimately, it is the decision of the parents, in consultation with their doctors.
Like anything else you tell your parents that's hard. You get them when they are calm and settled. Not stressed, worried or even hungry. Then tell them you have something important to tell them and please let you say it without interrupting. That it's important to you that they understand. By now you should be able to hear a pin drop unless they are telling you to hurry up. They are almost certainly expecting something worse than what you have to tell them. Then just spill it. It's unusual to be sure but not scary or horrible. They should be fine but maybe concerned with logistics on how you can have a relationship with just one of them. So explain how you've worked it out and it should be all good.
There is a critical piece of information, and one further very important one, missing from the question: a) what is their short-, medium- and long-term chance of survival if they remain unseparated? and b) are they conjoined in a way that would make it extraordinarily difficult for them to access the wider world if they are not separated (e.g. with a body shape that would require a wheelchair too wide for standard doors)?If, like the Hensel twins, they were in great health and their only major access barrier in the world would be an attitudinal one, then no, no way.If on the other hand someone isn't getting enough oxygenated blood, or one heart can't pump, or something of that sort… I think most people would take a small chance of leaving the hospital with at least one baby over a certain chance of having to bury both.
Should conjoined twins be separated or born?
What do you mean, 'should they be born'? I don't think they have a choice in the matter. Some parents choose to terminate a pregnancy with anomalies, and conjoined twins have a very high neonatal mortality rate, but a lot of people choose to carry a pregnancy to term, with the hope of at the very least having a chance to cuddle and say goodbye before they die. Not terminating means that the mother doesn't have to add the guilt of choosing when her children die to the heartache of losing two children. As for separating them, usually, they're not separated at birth, they usually live conjoined for a period of time before they're old enough and strong enough to survive the surgery. In a surgery where one baby is expected to die, but both can live a reasonable life span, then the surgery should only go ahead if both children have been informed of the risks and are completely aware of the outcome. If both children are given high chance of survival, then it should be the parents choice to separate them while they're too young to remember the surgery or wait until they're old enough to actively decide on the surgery. Because every set of conjoined twins are different, from where the joining occurs, what tissues and organs are involved and the health and wellbeing of the children as they grow is very different, there's no way to place a blanket decision on the situation. Another major issue is, when one of conjoined twins dies, it's a death sentence to the other. At best, the living twin can survive for a few hours, so that needs to be taken into account when considering whether or not surgery should take place. There's a lot more than personal opinion here, so no one can really give an opinion on what's right or wrong in general. There are too many variables to consider, too many unique situations. My only opinion on the subject is that conjoined twins should not be automatically terminated before birth. Every child deserves a chance at life, no matter how small the chance, and, at the very least, every parent deserves the chance to say hello and goodbye to their child.
Legally are conjoined twins one or two people?
Legally they are two people. However the uniqueness of their individual situation would depend on who has control of what motor functions. Regardless it is unreasonable to think that one would be able to commit a crime without the other having some part in it. Especially when it comes to things like murder, or any per-meditated crime. For punching someone, there wouldn't likely be a great punishment. Any person could easily flee from conjoined twins, and they never are to the point of extreme functionality, they are always deformed and unable to effectively move. So anyone would be able to avoid the continued assault.
Since it’s an unusual ethical dilemma, some film directors suppose an audience will be interested in such plot. Еpisodes 11 and 12 of The Good Doctor (2017) are dedicated to above question. Actually, I quite like how the personnel of the hospital has managed the problem. They let us feel all the hues of emotions: the twin girls are hesitant, then scared and regretful. Both of them change their mind about separation for different reasons.Now that we have modern technologies which let us separate even craniopagus conjoined twins (those whose heads are fused), parents of such twins prefer to do is as soon as possible for obvious reasons. Most of the separation articles feature babies under 2 years old. Cause such small children can’t give consent, it’s becoming their parents’ responsibility. There are still cases when one of the twins dies afterwards, so it must be really hard for parents to decide.Just as every other siblings, conjoined twins can love each other deeply, be just cohabitants or even despise each other. But I guess separation in adult age can be performed against twin’s will only if it can save other twin’s life. The legislating in regards of such decisions must be improved in the future, cause conjoined twins keep to be born in the ratio of 5 to 1 million.
Conjoined twins, one person or two??????
there are different types of conjoined twins. 1. Conjunction never involving heart or umbilicus * Craniopagus: Cranial union only, about 2% of all conjoined twins. * Pygopagus. Posterior union of the rump, about 19% of all conjoined twins. 2. Conjunctions Always involving the Umbilicus (Midline Conjunctions) * Thoracopagus: Anterior union of the upper half of the trunk. The most common form of conjoined twins (about 35%), it always involves sharing the heart. * Cephalopagus: Anterior union of the upper half of the body with two faces on opposite sides of a conjoined head. Extremely rare. The heart is sometimes involved. A combination of types 3 and 4 is called epholothoracopagus. * Parapagus (sometimes called diprosopus): lateral union of the lower half, extending variable distances upward, about 5% of all conjoined twins. Heart sometimes involved. * Ischopagus: Anterior union of the lower half of the body, about 6% of all conjoined twins. Heart not involved. * Omphalopagus: Anterior union of the midtrunk, about 30% of conjoined twins. 3. Rare forms of conjoined twins, having different patterns. * Parasitic twins: Asymmetrical conjoined twins, one twin being small, less formed, and dependent upon the other. * Fetus in fetu: Situation in which an imperfect fetus is contained completely within the body of its sibling. so not all types have 1 body and 2 heads, so....
Well when you say that being conjoined doesn't hurt quality of life, I think you have it wrong. I forget what the documentary is called, but there is a segment dedicated to conjoined twins and their lifestyle. As children, no it doesn't hurt much because they don't even know the difference. But as they grow older, they are teased at school and serious medical complications can occur. Not to mention independence in life. Same college. Same friends. Same brain in some cases. Imagine someone looking over your shoulder at everything you do. Or having someone literally attached at your hip when you are trying to fall asleep at night. And the little things that must make life so much more complicated. Doctors/dentists appointments with only one chair? Good luck. Getting through doorways, finding a seat in a theater, it's all so much harder. And what about females? Imagine when they have their periods! It's hard enough already but to have someone see every single one, up close and personal…Ewww! If they want different career paths, it's hard because they would need to be at two places at one time. Kids would be very difficult as the pregnant belly could get in the way even more. And the icing on the cake- sex life. It's a scientific fact that a person needs a healthy sex life to not only be a healthy person but a happy person in a strong and stable relationship. The girls in this documentary only had the privacy of closed eyes and headphones when their twin was having sex with their boyfriend. Awkward!Now for the surgery. Yes it's very risky. The outcome may possibly be worse than what is mentioned above. But it's a chance. One that, I, personally, would take.