Article Text
Abstract
In his paper, ‘Twin pregnancy, fetal reduction and the ‘all or nothing problem’, Räsänen sets out to apply Horton’s ‘all or nothing’ problem to the ethics of multifetal pregnancy reduction from a twin to a singleton pregnancy (2-to-1 MFPR). Horton’s problem involves the following scenario: imagine that two children are about to be crushed by a collapsing building. An observer would have three options: do nothing, save one child by allowing their arms to be crushed, or save both by allowing their arms to be crushed. Horton offers two intuitively plausible claims: (1) it is morally permissible not to save either child and (2) it is morally impermissible to save only one of the children, which taken together lead to the problematic conclusion that (3) if an observer does not save both children, then it is better to save neither than save only one. Räsänen applies this problem to the case of 2-to-1 MFPR, arguing ultimately that, in cases where there is no medical reason to reduce, the woman ought to bring both fetuses to term. We will argue that Räsänen does not provide adequate support for the claim, crucial to his argument, that aborting only one of the fetuses in a twin pregnancy is wrong, so the ‘all or nothing’ problem does not arise in this context. Furthermore, we argue that the scenario Räsänen presents is highly unrealistic because of the clinical realities of 2-to-1 MFPR, making his argument of limited use for real-life decision making in this area.
- abortion
- clinical ethics
- embryos and fetuses
- women
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Footnotes
Twitter @begovic_dunja, @ECRomanis, @JoanneVerweij
Contributors All three authors participated in researching, writing, editing and revising the manuscript. DB wrote the section on conceptual issues, ECR and EJTV wrote the section on clinical realities, ECR wrote the section on subjective decision making, and DB and ECR wrote the introduction and conclusion.
Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Linked Articles
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- Antenatal care for twin and triplet pregnancies: summary of NICE guidance
- Trends in the incidence and mortality of multiple births by socioeconomic deprivation and maternal age in England: population-based cohort study
- Ethics of fetal reduction: a reply to my critics
- Increased risk of congenital heart disease in twins in the North of England between 1998 and 2010
- IVF twins: buy one get one free?
- Influence of twin-twin transfusion syndrome on fetal cardiovascular structure and function: prospective case–control study of 136 monochorionic twin pregnancies
- Twin pregnancy, fetal reduction and the 'all or nothing problem’
- When diamniotic twins suddenly become monoamniotic twins: spontaneous septostomy of the dividing membrane
- Pathology of twin placentas with special attention to monochorionic twin placentas
- Clinical effectiveness of elective single versus double embryo transfer: meta-analysis of individual patient data from randomised trials