[Cicero]

I didn’t read it carefully enough the first time. If a C-Section could have saved them both, then probably that should have been tried. But if they did the best they could, then saving one is better than letting both of them die.

[GeronL]

The headline makes it sound like they sacrificed one for the other, which is sick

[Mrs. Don-o]

I'm confused. Are you referencing the original article here? That was not about a method of delivery, C-section or otherwise. That was about the separation of conjoined twins where only one could survive. That's ethical because you are not directly killing one twin, even if Twin #1 dies as a result of a genuinely therapeutic procedure saving Twin #2.

The C-section discussion further down the thread is with reference to another situation, where a midwife might be considering a craniotomy (crushing or lopping off a baby's head) when managing a badly-positioned twin delivery.

Deliberate craniotomy is always wrong. ON the other hand, if you're trying to save both, but a baby tragically dies because of a traumatic attempted forceps delivery, that's a different matter. The outcome would be the same (one dead baby, one live one) but the act that resulted in the decease of one of the babies was not deliberately lethal. It was an attempted live delivery for both.