The risk of having twins.

I am not talking about your, or any other individual person's children....I am sorry if you felt offended. The mental picture I had was a 15 year old smoker & drinker who brings a child home into poverty & chaos...though I am sure someone who meets that profile will take offense & point out how well their child has done. Of course, there are outliers in every statistic....there are college professors whose kids drop out in 10th grade & children of 14 year old homeless mothers who attend Harvard....but I am just pointing out that, although I have risk factors, I also have benefits to offer my children.

 

Thank you...I completely understand there are many excellent parents of all kinds....I also realize there are crummy parents who look soooo good from the outside (I have such intimate knowledge of that kind)....I was just trying to point out that I have something to offer my children.

 

This is just unkind & crass. Nothing I could say would help.

 

I'm sorry that you felt it was unkind and crass. Your post did come across rather snobby, that you are a better candidate to take the risk of transferring two or more embryos because you are financially secure, are educated, blah blah. I'll leave out all the "devoted to your kids" stuff because really, how are you going to compare your devotion to your children to mine or anyone else's?

We're not talking about smoking, drinking, teen mothers here. We're talking about parents and doctors who take the risk to transfer multiple embryos and the risks resulting from twin pregnancies. Yes, I took the risk too, even though I'm not as well-off or educated as you are. Frankly I don't see what that has to do with anything.

 

Hmmm.. interesting. My 36.4 week twins did not spend a DAY in the NICU, but my 41 week singleton spent 5 days in NICU due to retained fluid on the lungs.

ONE of my twins (interestingly the second born) does have some respiratory issues, and gets pneumonia several times/year along with febral seizures from high Fevers. Other than that though, they are healthy, SMART little kids. To smart sometimes. LOL

 

I took it the same way.

Totally agree. There's no point IMO in taking it all that personally.

 

Personally, I am beginning to wonder if there is something in the air because in a few different posts lately it seems people are starting to take things to personal. I thought the article was kind of emotionless. It said the the risks and that is what it posted. It was stacked negatively risk wise and IMO against any and all kind of twins. Obviously these problems do not occur in all twin pregnancys, but enough. A twin pregnancy is considered a high risk pregncy, no matter how it occured. My twin pregnancy occured naturally. Lasted 40 wks and 3 days before being induced. My girls were born healthy at 6.2 and 6.7 lbs and 19.5". No health problems. My baby B does apear to have learning disability. Listening to that study though you would believe it is only because she is a twin. I think it is just a part of who she is and not because she shared a womb.

 

I WAS envisioning the worst case scenario - poverty, extreme youth, risky behaviors, etc when I posted - that was the comparison I was making....that although I had issues, I also had benefits for a baby - or 2.
I did NOT transfer 3 embryos trying to achieve a multiple pregnancy or because I thought I would financially be better able to care for twins - I wanted one, healthy baby. I transferred three because the chances of achieving even one baby were so low & that is what my doctor recommended. I was terrified, given that I started the pregnancy at 90 lbs & I am only 5'1/2" that a twin pregnancy would be more difficult for me. Discussing the pluses, along with the minuses of my "suitability" as a parent was the point of my original post. You took it as snobby when that was the furthest thing from my mind....I was comparing quantifiable criteria that have been studied to determine the risk factors that children face. The fact of the matter is parental educational level is a powerful indicator of school success...it just is. As far as devotion to your children...everyone has to find the relationship they want with their kids. I feel free to claim my devotion to my girls....not in comparison to anyone else...but my feelings about my own bond to my girls. Frankly, I enjoy it when parents proclaim their devotion to their children.

If we want to get into it further....given that multiples are riskier & have increased risks of health & developmental issues....shouldn't a parents ability - financial, social, physical & familial - be taken into consideration when the decision to transfer a certain number of embryos is made? That sure seemed the consensus when Octo-mom was headline news.

 

I work on a Mom Baby Unti that does 7,000 + births per year. Instead of doing an article on twins I think the author should have done an article on moms who drink, smoke and use drugs. Fetal Alcohol Syndrome and use of drugs while pregnant cause more learning disabilities than being a multiple! Not to mention all the tax dollars that pay the NICU bill for babies born addicted to drugs. Babies born addicted to drugs have seizures, feeding issues, and severe tremors. I could go on and on.....My twins are a blessing from God and it irritates me that someone even took the time to write about how many problems a multiple could have.

 

I had read the New York Times article and was not wild about it; many of the moms on another Multiples board I'm on were bothered by it because it seemed to perpetuate stereotypes and negative attitudes toward IF treatments (and if you read the comments left, that seems to be true!).
This article seemed less negative and biased to me. On the one hand, I agree that some people tend to glorify multiples and I think this article provides a good reality check. But I agree that it did leave out the other side--it includes no studies about benefits of being a twin. Even if you're just quoting statistics, you can still have a bias by what you choose to include or exclude.