God, the tone of this article sickens me.

We're twinseparable! Happy with his brother, the boy who refused to die

By LUCY LAING - More by this author » Last updated at 01:09am on 3rd November 2007

Comments (20)

They say twins share a strong bond - but the one between Gabriel and Ieuan Jones was unbreakable.

When doctors found that Gabriel was weaker than his brother, with an enlarged heart,and believed he was going to die in the womb, his mother Rebecca Jones had to make a heartbreaking decision.

Doctors told her his death could cause his twin brother to die too before they were born, and that it would be better to end Gabriel's suffering sooner rather than later.

Scroll down for more...

Thriving: Gabriel, right, with his twin brother Ieuan, is now a healthy 12lb 6oz at seven months

Mrs Jones decided to let doctors operate to terminate Gabriel's life.

Firstly they tried to sever his umbilical cord to cut off his blood supply, but the cord was too strong.

They then cut Mrs Jones's placenta in half so that when Gabriel died, it would not affect his twin brother.

But after the operation which was meant to end his life, tiny Gabriel had other ideas.

Although he weighed less than a pound, he put up such a fight for survival that doctors called him Rocky.

Astonishingly, he managed to carry on living in his mother's womb for another five weeks - until the babies were delivered by caesarean section.

Now he and Ieuan are back at home in Stoke - and are so close they are always holding each other's hand.

Mrs Jones, 35, a financial adviser whose husband Mark, 36, is a car salesman, said: "It really is a miracle. Doctors carried out an operation to let Gabriel die - yet he hung on.

"It was unbelievable."

"When I felt him kicking madly the morning after the operation, I suddenly knew that he was going to hang on.

"The doctors couldn't believe it when they could still hear his heartbeat the next morning."

Scroll down for more...

Rebecca Jones: 'It's a miracle'

Mrs Jones learned she was expecting twins when she was ten weeks pregnant. She said: "When they told us we were over the moon."

But at her 20-week scan, doctors had some devastating news. One of the boys was half the size of his brother.

They didn't know what was causing it, but somehow he wasn't getting enough nutrients.

Then doctors said his heart was three times normal size and it was likely he would have a heart attack or a stroke in the womb.

Mrs Jones said: "They told us that if he died, it could be life threatening for his brother.

"We had to decide whether to end his life and let his brother live, or risk them both."

They said it would be impossible to keep him alive afterwards as he was so poorly.

It would be kinder to let him die in the womb with his brother by his side than to die alone after being born.

"That made my mind up for me. I wanted the best thing for him."

At Birmingham Women's Hospital, when Mrs Jones was 25 weeks pregnant, doctors tried to sever Gabriel's umbilical cord to cut off his blood supply and allow him to die.

But the cord was too thick, and they could not cut through it.

As a last resort they divided Mrs Jones's placenta so that when Gabriel died, it would allow Ieuan to survive. Mrs Jones said: "I put my hands on my stomach thinking of Gabriel. It was devastating. I had said my goodbyes."

But the next morning Mrs Jones felt Gabriel kicking. A scan showed his heart was still beating. She said: "No one could quite believe it."

Gabriel hung on, and his enlarged heart started to reduce in size. He also gained weight.

Mrs Jones said: "They thought it may be because the placenta had been divided. Inadvertently, it had evened out the distribution of nutrition between them, allowing Gabriel to survive.'

When Mrs Jones reached 31 weeks doctors carried out a caesarian to deliver the twins. Ieuan weighed 3lb 8oz and Gabriel 1lb 15oz. Both were kept in hospital, but since going home they have thrived. At seven months, Ieuan weighs 15lb and Gabriel 12lb 6oz.

Mrs Jones said: "The boys are so healthy, they have huge appetites too. Ieuan is the noisy one, while Gabriel is always laughing, it's like he's just so happy to be here.

"There is such a strong bond between them.

"They are always holding hands and if one cries, the other reaches out to comfort him."

"Doctors tried to break their bond in the womb, but they just proved it couldn't be broken."

They're treating it like some human interest story.  For whatever reason, Gabriel is now considered a human life who deserves every chance to continue living.  But at the time, he was considered nothing more than a medical liability.  What's heartbreaking is that the mother gave up on what she viewed as a person and signed his death warrant.  "Let Gabriel die" she says.  Make Gabriel die, she should have said.

In stories like this you always hear about how hard it is for the woman.  How hard is it to take a principled stand, say, "I believe this is my son and I will not kill him," and then tell the doctors to focus on keeping him alive rather than on removing the problem?  Pretty hard...but it's the better way, damn it.  It's hard to drum up sympathy, it really is.  I mean, the only reason he's still alive is because he showed improvement after they performed an operation that was supposed to kill him or keep his brother from dying...isn't that progress in prenatal care?

Obviously not every case would be like this, but shouldn't we expend all options to keep a child alive before we determine that it would be so much "better" to let them die?

Ghoulish.  And yet another episode which confirms that doctors are not always right about these things.

Dems already discount war report

By S.A. Miller
September 6, 2007

Sen. Richard J. Durbin, Illinois Democrat, talked with reporters yesterday in Washington. "We know what is going to be in it," he said of the Iraq war report next week. "I expect the Bush report to say, 'The surge is working. Let's have more of the same.' "

---

Congressional Democrats are trying to undermine U.S. Army Gen. David H. Petraeus' credibility before he delivers a report on the Iraq war next week, saying the general is a mouthpiece for President Bush and his findings can't be trusted.

"The Bush report?" Senate Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin said when asked about the upcoming report from Gen. Petraeus, U.S. commander in Iraq.
I like the scorn and contempt here:
"We know what is going to be in it. It's clear. I think the president's trip over to Iraq makes it very obvious," the Illinois Democrat said. "I expect the Bush report to say, 'The surge is working. Let's have more of the same.' "

The top Democrats — Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California — also referred to the general's briefing as the "Bush report."

Rep. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, said Gen. Petraeus' report was potentially compromised by the White House's involvement in drafting it.

"If the same people who were so wrong about this war from the start are writing substantial portions of this report, that raises credibility questions," he said.
Does it now, sparky?  Then why didn't you say something when you agreed to hear what Petraeus had to say?
Republicans bristled at the pre-emptive strike against the report.

"Are these leaders asking the American people to believe that the testimony of a commanding four-star general in the U.S. Army should be discarded before it's even delivered?" said Brian Kennedy, spokesman for House Minority Leader John A. Boehner, Ohio Republican.

"If so, these statements completely ignore what's truly at stake in this war and suggest that neither the commander in chief nor our chief commander on the ground have any regard for the lives of the men and women fighting for this country," he said. "It's appallng, and I think the American people — rightfully — will continue to stick by the decisions of our commanders and troops on the ground when it comes to what is best for their safety and security."

Mr. Bush's surprise visit Monday to Iraq's Anbar province showcased success in the one-time al Qaeda stronghold where Sunni tribal leaders teamed with U.S. troops to drive out the terrorists and rapidly improve security.
Even Katie Couric was saying this!  What is the problem?
Despite continued bloodshed in Iraq, the president's visit was one of several recent signs of U.S. military success in Iraq that blunted antiwar momentum leading up to the September progress report.

The congressionally mandated report from the administration, which will be delivered in two parts by Gen. Petraeus and U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan C. Crocker, is expected to show some U.S. military advances, but limited progress from the fledgling Iraqi government toward ending sectarian fighting.
A fair assessment, but not the death knell the Democrats were hoping for.  Assholes!
Democrats said they put more faith in a report Tuesday by the Government Accountability Office that showed Iraq failed to meet 11 of 18 political and security benchmarks set by Congress.
Cherry-picking assholes.
They also favored an analysis due today
by Gen. James L. Jones, former U.S. commander in Europe, that is expected to say security gains have been "uneven" and Iraqi security forces are ill-prepared to stand alone, according to a CNN report.
What do they want?  It's been 4 years, and those years have been full of conflict here and in Iraq.  Not much has been done since 2006, either.
"We will see what the Bush report will be at the end of next week," Mrs. Pelosi said. "The facts are self-evident that the progress is not being made. They might want to find one or two places where there has been progress but the plural of anecdote is not data."
The plural of anecdote is indeed not data, Madame.  But the measure of progress is not to be compared to a standard of immediacy which seems to pervade our thinking in all things.
She said Democrats were determined to uncover "the ground truth in Iraq."

Ask a marine!

Do you hear that sound?  It’s the other shoe dropping.
A report from the Washington Times confirmed what everyone already knew was going to happen.  The Democrats have decided that the report from General David Petraeus doesn’t actually mean anything to the debate on Iraq.  From what I am able to gather from the article, top Democrat leaders scoff at the report for the contributions made by the ever-evil Bush Administration -- that same Bush Administration which is responsible for the entire world’s ills!  Those same masters of Machiavellian machination, purveyors of perfidy, truculent trolls and dim-witted divisive dicks.  Oh!  Shall I list their many vile deeds?  I daresay the reader has not the time to devote to such an undertaking, nor the author a desire to make it his noble life's work!
Discounting the fact that these reports contain reams of paper chock full of details that someone like Petraeus would be better served to have provided to them, it’s still asinine for the Democrats to do this.
May I be frank?  May I be utterly clear about my feelings?  For the Democrats to come out before the deadline to which they agreed and say that nothing in the report will change their views is the height of arrogance, stupidity and hypocrisy.  For months the talk has been, “Wait and see about Petraeus…then we’ll proceed.”  But the cynical among us never had much hope that would be the case.  No, as in most everything the decision has been made and those who are inclined one way or the other shall not move.
Whatever your views on Iraq, for anyone to view this as anything better than “politics as usual” would be jarringly naïve.  If I am not mistaken, Mme. Pelosi and her ilk came to power with many long-winded speeches about Republican duplicity and how there would be a new dawn of openness in government from that point.  It would appear that openness is understood to mean broadcasting the fact that you have made up your mind before hearing the report made by the one man who just might be able to give us a straight answer.