Here is a draft of the letter I am sending my wife’s PO. He sent me some printouts from the National Library of Medicine about twin-to-twin-transfusion syndrome. I brought this topic up in the past with my wife and him, months ago. I really like this guy, and I‘m hoping to save my brother by showing him his folly in worshiping an organization. Maybe I’ll get the boot over this, don’t know / don’t care really. I have to try for his sake. Anyway, here is the letter in rough form, sorry for any typo’s:
Dave,
Thank you for the interesting information on Twin-to-Twin Transfusion Syndrome (TTTS). Actually I was familiar with much of the information but it was good to look over some of this information again. I appreciate you taking the time to do this. I noticed you highlighted certain segments in yellow highlighter such as the high mortality rate some “80% without treatment” and that “twin-twin transfusion syndrome is a serious complication of monochorionic twin pregnancies” etc. I assume you were trying to make the point that this is a defect, an imperfection, and in that respect your efforts did not fall on deaf ears so to speak as I agree that you are quite correct.
Yes TTTS is a serious complication, especially if not treated very early before the damage is done to either or both twins. Usually it is the “donor” also sometimes called the “stuck twin” that suffers the most, as this baby is the one drained of its life-giving blood supply. Other serious complications in a closely related type of pregnancy can include conjoined fetuses commonly referred to as Siamese twins (depending on what day the egg splits). When such twins share the same sack, entanglement of the umbilical cord and resulting strangulation of one of the twins has been known to sometimes occur.
Dave, the information you presented is quite accurate, however it appears that it is written from the standpoint of describing a serious condition that sometimes occurs in these twins, not what normally occurs. What is not brought out with any emphasis, and rightfully so because that was not the intent of the author, is that THE GREAT MAJORITY, 80-90% of monochorionic pregnancies ARE BORN PERFECTLY HEALTHY.
Multitudes of such twins are born and live perfectly normal lives and they are closer to each other then any other type of normal twin right down to their very DNA. The condition of TTTS occurs ONLY when there is a SEVERE IMBALANCE in blood flow from one twin to the other, only then does it become a problem. When the two fetuses share the same placenta, vascular couplings or links develop between their circulations. The medical term for this is anastomoses. This condition is unavoidable, quite harmless and normal as some blood flow and intermingling of the blood of the twins is not a problem since they share an exact match in their DNA. These anastomoses can be of three types: vein-to-vein, artery-to-artery and artery-to-vein. Fortunately in most case even when there are multiple vascular connections within a single placenta, little or no twin-to-twin transfusion should occur provided the anastomoses are in balance. It’s when the anastomoses are out of balance that there is a problem because one twin pumps to much of his blood supply into the other twin and the recipient twin disproportionately receives to much of this blood. Commingling of the blood however in all cases is unavoidable as the blood supplies of the twins are directly and physically connected to each other through the shared placenta and the cross-connecting anastomoses, but as previously stated this is not a problem as the DNA match is perfect.
That said Dave; I believe the large and what I consider most significant point that you apparently fail to see from your research thus far is that AT ONE TIME THESE TWINS ALSO SHARED THE SAME BLOOD SUPPLY. AT ONE TIME THEIR BLOOD, WHOLE BLOOD AND NOT JUST FRACTIONS WERE COMINGELED IN THE NATURAL SETTING OF THEIR MOTHER’S WOMB.
And while yes it is true that SOME of these types of twins unfortunately suffer serious illnesses, MOST however don’t.
If one is honest with the facts, and even knowing that a MINIROTY suffer as a result of sharing the same placenta and sometimes the same sack, ALL OF THEM, YES EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THESE TYPES OF TWINS AT ONE TIME SHARED THE SAME BLOOD SUPPLY, that fact is inescapable.
I wish to thank you for reinforcing in my own mind one of the reasons why the blood prohibition with respect to medical emergency use needs a great deal of rethinking.
Dave, in a nutshell here is my reasoning on this issue. If God in his wisdom allows such things as the sharing of whole blood between two individuals to occur inside the womb, why are we sacrificing thousands of people each year, letting them die because receiving whole blood or certain restricted fractions is prohibited outside the womb? Why in God’s name must good and decent people, some of them just innocent children, why must they die? Who is please or served by this sacrifice?
I just can’t in good conscience defend the current blood policy and I’m not alone in this thinking as more then one brother on a hospital liaison committee has confided in me that they too were conflicted over certain aspects of the blood issue. I know I sure can’t explain why taking white cells during a medical emergency transfusion is prohibited, but taking millions of white cells in milk, mother’s milk, or even cows milk is somehow OK. I can’t explain why human colostrum, also know as “the first milk”, a milk loaded with tons of white cells is not on the prohibited list. If it’s not OK to take white cells intravenous, why is it OK to drink them? Should drinking milk be a conscience issue? Why is receiving donated organs now a conscience issue since such transplanted organs contain millions of human white cells, cells which are on the prohibited blood product list?
I really believe this entire issue needs rethinking. I feel punishment of those who using their God given conscience and deciding for themselves or their minor children to accept a blood product or even whole blood is wrong. Isn’t this in effect punishing one for following the example of the God to whom they owe their very existence.
The question you must ask yourself Dave, knowing the facts that you do know, (and please research the facts for yourself) would you still feel comfortable supporting this position. Would you feel comfortable serving on a judicial committee when deciding the fate of someone who followed their conscience and God’s own example that modern medical science has now shown us? Think about it.
I don’t expect a reply, these are questions for you to answer for yourself, I only hope though that perhaps I have made my position and my reasoning more clear. Again I thank you for the effort and thoughtfulness in bringing this information to my attention and wish you warm regards.
Freeman
