The risk of having twins.

http://www.slate.com/id/2232191/?GT1=38001



Even though some of the Stats, maybe true. I find it very sad.. I am so blessed to have my twins. I knew the dangers, but I couldnt imagine NOT being a twin mommy. I was actually thinking of that this morning, how without the pain of infertility, I wouldnt have the joy of twins.

My twins are not smaller than other kids, were born at 39 weeks and havent suffered any lasting effects of being a twin. However, I can understand the study, and know I am not the norm, but the exception to the twin mommy rule.

Whats your views?

Brandy

 

Mine were born at 37 weeks and I don't think have any lasting effects of being a twin either. They are smaller then kids their age but when you have a mom AND dad that were one of the smallest in their class too I didn't really expect them to be big.

 

I saw this and here's what I posted on my FB about it -

Interesting article, but it does not address what could potentially solve some of these problems - mandatory infertility coverage and/or universal health care. If people didn't only have one chance at an IVF cycle, then maybe they (patients and... doctors) would be more willing to give just one embryo a shot. When you are paying $20K+ per cycle, yes you will transfer more than one.

 

For some reason that article really bugged me. It just seemed so anti-twin, trying to find every study, even ones that are questionable, to prove a point. My boys were early, 31 weekers. However, the bulk of our medical issues revolve around our singleton. The twins are the tallest in their class, strong and healthy. I don't see any IQ issues, they certainly seem like normal 6 year olds to me. I don't know, that article just really bugged me.

 

I agree with you, though I couldn't put my finger on it until I read your reply. I think I would have liked the article more if it would have been more balanced, maybe showing some of the benefits of having twins, the benefits of being twins. Aren't there studies on that, too?

 

I'm glad I'm not the only one who felt that way. It almost seemed to me like they were saying, "Your twins will be small, dumb, possibly disabled or seriously ill and it's a burden on our health care system too, so just don't bother." Maybe I'm just overly sensitive?

Our boys were born at 38 weeks and both almost seven pounds each. No NICU time, no extra time in the hospital and certainly not small for their age. They talk better than their three year old brother (who was barely talking at age two) and the worst illness we've had around here is a case of croup in January. So, they can take that article and stick it where the sun don't shine as far as I'm concerned (again, possibly overly sensitive here).

 

This was my thought too. Its why I said it made me sad. i just didnt know if it was just "me". hah

You said it better than I could.

Brandy

 

Was that article written by a twin-hater or what?

 

It did strike me as sad and anti-twin, but I also think sometimes people glorify (not the right word, but can't think of a better one) having twins and other multiples. There are very real risks. Don't get me wrong, I love having twins too and I can't imagine things any other way, but having singletons is still safer, health-wise. I also felt like the article was blaming everything on IF treatment. So only people who conceive the old-fashioned way are "allowed" their twins? Yes, twins do account for an increase in multiples, but just anecdotally, it seems at least here on TS that the split between IF treatment twins and spontaneous twins is about 50/50.

I do stand by my previous statement though, that if people weren't paying so much for IF treatment, maybe they wouldn't take that risk of transferring two or more embryos. I also wonder what the rate of multiples is for IVF vs IUI. IVF seems to get "blamed" for all the multiples, when I'm willing to bet more result from IUI.

 

There are many risks involved for anyone having a child - certainly a twin pregnancy is a little riskier than a single pregnancy. But....many factors create risk: poverty, being too young, being too old, smoking, drinking, genetic predisposal to disease, depression, lack of education, poor nutrition, etc, etc, etc. I transferred three embryos, was 40 years old & conceived twins. However, I am educated, employed, have financial resources, good family support, a complete & utter devotion to my children, maturity & many other attributes that give my children a better chance at a happy, educated, healthy future than the average child. I am profoundly grateful for my twins - I wasn't "trying" for multiples but I sure feel blessed I was given them.

 

Kelly, don't fall over, but I agree with you!

 

Interesting, I didn't read that article as anti-twin at all ... just kind of statistical. I think people tend to take things personally when an article touches on something personal to them (not saying that's right or wrong, just how it is). My kids were born small (5, 5.8 lbs) and Jake is off the charts for height and weight. I can't really tell "intelligence" yet, they are 2.5! :laughing: But I think they are brilliant. :wub:

I think it is higher risk to have twins ... are there people that really don't think that? Sure, a lot of things bring increased risk ... but bottom line you have a higher chance of prematurity with twins, and with prematurity comes a higher risk of other problems, like CP.

We can anecdotally talk about our own children and personal situations all day long, but the truth of it is, the more fetuses, the higher chance of prematurity and other risks.

Really? So your kids are going to have a better chance at being happy, healthy and educated than the children of a woman who only has a high school degree, is a SAHM, is younger than you and doesn't have as much money?

ETA: Fixed some bad spelling.

 

There are higher risks with twins and I would not wish a twins pregnancy on my worst enemy. I suffered (horribly painful pregnancy, swelling, blood pressure that spiked AFTER delivery, melanoma blamed on the excess estrogen created by the twin pregnancy...probably would have happened anyway but this sped it up and my immune system has never been the same) and my twins suffered (born at 33 weeks, low blood sugar at birth, low birth weights, they are still barely in the 3% for weight but are in the 25-50% for height). There are health issues we are still trying to figure out but I'm not sure it goes back to prematurity.

Do I think they are less intelligent...no, they are on track for being normal 2nd graders. Do I love my twins, yes. Is my singleton any better off........the pregnancy was easier and she was carried to full term and healthy birth weight but has had more health issues than the twins (but this could also be blamed on the twins because my body was in horrible condition after the twins and the cancer and oops....I got preggo).

My point is that we can't say that the stats in the report aren't true....for every great story about healthy multiples born there are bad stories about multiple pregnancies that didn't go well.

 

I agree with this. That statement above that I bolded was what I felt when reading the article...which is why it kind of bugged me. I totally understand the statistical information that they laid out and the risks are very true. Since having my twins, I don't know how many people came up to me and told me that they would LOVE to have twins. Kelly is right that there are people who glorify having multiples without thinking about the risks that might occur.

 

I agree with you, and my twin pregnancy was also horrible, I nearly did not survive the birth. (though that had nothing to do with it being twins) My issue with the article is using every negative report it could find and choosing to write it in a very unbalanced way. I am sure many of the stats are true, I don't deny that. I just think the tone of the article leaves much to be desired.

 

Hmm. interesing story. Seemed to be missing something. It starts with the premiss of saving money on medical treatment if there were less mulitple births from fertility clinics. But there is also an increase in trouble with young moms, so should they just not have kids? And older moms to be are more likely to have twins, so should they not try for kids either? For me there was no end. Just a list of statistics on how bad things can go with twins. I know there are people that tend to romaticise the idea of twins and "always hoped to have twins" but that really is not something that people can plan on having. Yes there is a increase possibility with assistance but there are few of us out here that did not get assistance and still ended up with twins. And in out little group of friends (seven sets) two were ivf, one clomid, four were "spontanious" two set was a month early and spent. Only one set is on the small side. one set has speach issues. One mom had severe complications after the birth. Anyway. All are strong, healthy, on track with their peers now.

 

Yeah, I don't really think it is anti-twin either, just like Erica said, "statistical".

There is a higher risk to having multiples. A higher risk that they'll be born prematurely, and with premature births, the chances of complications due to prematurity increases.

And BellaRissa, just because you have "maturity" and "financial resources" and "good family support" doesn't mean that your children have a better chance at a "happy, educated, healthy" future than someone in my situation where I don't have financial resources or good family support. (Or maturity for that matter. :crazy

 

Haha! Had to give you a point for that. I think we get along fine as long as it's not politics.

 

I don't even know what to say to this. My poor kids and their average-income, college dropout, early 30's (when they were born) parents.

I wonder if the researches in the study factored in problems that ID twins have, such as TTTS and cord entanglement (momo twins). ID twins are not usually a result of IF treatment. I just felt like the article was a bit unfairly targeting twins that result from IF treatment, when really ALL twin pregnancies/births carry these risks. I don't disagree with the fact that twins are risky, and I do try to tell people that when they say they are hoping for twins.

 

Lagging behind by as much as an inch? :shok: Oh my!

Seriously though, I understand that twins are higher risk. Mine were born early, low birth weight, they are in early intervention, are small for their age, etc. Articles like these are probably hard for twin parents to deal with because maybe we have some guilt. But it doesn't change that the statistics are true. And FWIW, I think we don't deserve to feel guilty, but it just happens when it comes to your kids, ya know?

 

What bothers me is that yes, there are those chances, but you take a LOT of those similar chances in say a pregnancy in a mother who is overweight, or has high blood pressure, or diabetes, or a multitude of other health conditions. And like we have all said here- there are also perfectly good chances that the kids will be JUST FINE. Yes, mine were born at 35w6d, but otherwise are in the 90th% for height and 50% for weight, they were in speech therapy, but have graduated, and are perfectly smart little guys without any long term problems. Also, mine are clomid babies, something that typically results in a singleton pregnancy, and there are plenty of spontaneous twins on here, so it's not like all these twins being born are because everyone's out "irresponsibly" using IVF. (and I have that in quotes due to the leaning of the author's tone, NOT my personal opinion whatsoever!)

 

My kids must be screwed then. I was 22 when I got pregnant, wasn't with the father. I don't have a college degree and they were born at 29 weeks.

 

I could be wrong but I honestly don't think she meant her qualities as to be the 'only' qualities that can give an advantage to successfully raising kids/twins or not. I think a few here are taking her comments a little too personally. It sort of illustrates the same offense that is generated by the article itself...anytime you are included in anyway in a category indicating (statistically or anectdotally)risk of failure for your kids it's hard not to take it personally...and the same when you are some how excluded from categories indicating evidence for future success for your kids.

An article such as this, or remarks made such as this will always be judged as how they include or exclude our own situations. I really don't think BellaRissa meant her comments to exclude people. I think she was merely arguing against the cold way in which the article has assessed the risks of being a twin. The things she has mentioned in her favor would be in favor of any child, but plenty of people who don't fit her categories have other things in their favor, moral upstanding, gumption, willpower, determinedness which would also be ingredients for a happy, well-rounded child. As I don't know BellaRissa personally, I'm choosing to interpret her remarks in a positive way giving her the benefit of the doubt that she's not trying to attack others or be a snob.

 

Ditto this! I did not even THINK to take what she said as anything the least bit negative. It never crossed my mind. I try tho not to ever take things personally esp when I've never met the person in question.

Anyway, BellaRissa.. I didn't think anything was wrong with what you said and COMPLETELY understand what you were TRYING to get across. Totally!

 

Well, to me it DID sound snobby. That's how I interpreted IT. "I have all these things that mean my children will be so much better than the average child." To quote the late, great Chris Farley, "Well la-di-frickin-da!"

 

I had not read the Slate article, but I read the original one in the New York Times. I took it as being written from a public-health perspective. The increase in assisted fertility treatments increases the rate of multiple pregnancies, which in turn causes additional costs to society. That is a true fact. And it's also true that some people say they want twins, without being truly aware of the risks and costs.

But it did bother me that they didn't put more emphasis on the need for health insurance to cover IVF (though, IIRC, they did mention that the reason so many couples transfer two or more is because they can't afford multiple cycles -- which was certainly true in our case).

The only thing about the NYT article that truly got my goat was the statement (I'm doing this from memory) that the couple in Colorado was "obsessed" with having a child. So, you're "obsessed" if you try for a few years and use every option available to you? I guess by those standards, I was also obsessed, as were many others on this board. :spiteful:

 

What a horribly negative article.

My twins were born at 36+ weeks and my triplets at 35+ weeks. Yes all were in NICU but for the same reasons singletons would be in there. AND there were some singletons in there with more severe medical issues. I have 5 children and while I have 2 that need some extra help (after school) with school work they are not alone in that class it is full of singleton classmates. One has 1 of a set of twins in her class (during the day). I imagine if someone wanted to they could do an article on children born in Autumn and find similar health problems and high mortality.

 

Actually, someone did do a study on children born in the winter are less intelligent and not as likely to succeed. I'll have to find it, it was pretty stupid, says this non-achieving winter-born person.

ETA - Ainsley had health problems at birth and has a gross motor delay. She needed EI from the time she came home until she aged out of it. However, her issues have nothing to do with being a twin or premature birth, low birth weight, anything like that. She just happens to have congenital hypothyroidism and a joint condition. They were born at 38 weeks and over 6 lbs at birth. Bea had no problems at all, Ainsley crashed and nearly died, but it most likely would have happened had she been a singleton. I wonder if the people doing the study factor out those instances, or would Ainsley still be "a twin that had health problems".

 

I agree with you, Erica. I didn't so much read this article as anti-twin as talking about the very real risks multiple births can present. This is statistical fact. I know I was immediately considered to have a high risk pregnancy when we found out it was twins at my second u/s which meant more u/s, more frequent doctor's visits, and ultimately bed rest (my doctors did this routinely for all twin pregnancies -- no added medical condition prompted it other than the fact I was carrying multiples). Prior to my diagnosis with multiples, my pregnancy had gone along very uneventfully and it continued to proceed as such after the twins were discovered. The only thing that had changed in taking me from a normal to a high risk pregnancy was the fact that now it was learned I was carrying two babies, instead of just one. So the health care cost with a normal, healthy pregnancy went up due to increased doctor's visits/testing, and I was having no complications. Then imagine a multple gestational pregnancy with complications (not unlikely) and the costs go up further. My babies were both over 7 pounds at birth at 38 1/2 weeks so no NICU time (actually Brian did spend about four hours in NICU on oxygen but that was negligible) but many twin babies are premature and do require longer NICU time so again the costs go up dramatically. Add in any health issues the babies may continue to have and the costs go up yet again. That is what I took away as the point of the article.

All of this to say I don't think they were really trying to slam twins per se just to raise awareness that twin pregnancies are higher risk which is true.

 

I'm just trying to understand the point of the article. Is it just to raise the awareness of the risk of twins? Since they begin the article with this statement - "New York Times article published Saturday notes that a reduction in the number of twins born from fertility treatment could save the health care system $500 million." I believe they are encouraging women who get pregnant with twins to get a reduction? That's scary. I don't know if I agree with that!

I do agree with the few people that said that there should be more insurance coverage for fertility treatments.

 

I kind of thought the point was to illustrate that multiples do carry with them a higher gestational risk and a higher risk for complications after birth in general and that the medical community needs to try and find a way to reduce the number of multiple pregnancies which are produced by fertility treatments. In other words, our fertility treatments are producing a higher rate of multiple rather than singleton births. Fertility specialists and people who research treatment methods need to research ways couples can have increased fertility without necessarily increasing the incidence of multiple pregnancies.

That's just what I think the article was trying to present. For the record, I am happy ALL of our multiples are here, no matter how they were conceived, because ultimately they were all conceived out of love.

 

hah love juice

 

Bex, you are a riot!!

 

I was curious as well as to whether or not they factored ID twins into that study. My ID twins were not conceived through fertility treatments and were born at 29 weeks, so yea, we are living proof of some of the statistics in that article (including cerebral palsy). I actually found it kind of shocking that twins make up 7% of CP cases.
I agree with others though, having more that one baby simply is a higher risk.

 

Statistically speaking......children of educated, financially secure, mature parents have a better chance at educational & physical success than a child born into poverty, with immature parents, & no educational role models in the home. Those are just the impersonal facts that ignore a whole slew of other individual circumstances. I realize that, just as I know that my own precious girls will face struggles that no children should ever have to deal with. I was just pointing out that for every risk factor, there may be a statistical benefit.