Fetus hand reaches out
From FamousPicturesMagazine
 |
|
|
||||||
| Picture Taken On: Aug. 19, 1999 |
Place: Vanderbilt, Hospital Nashville |
Behind the Camera: Michael Clancy |
Picture Summary: Samuel Armas touching the surgeon's hand while still being in his mother's womb |
||||
| First Posted:2007-08-17 Last Updated on November 20, 2011 by Dean Lucas |
|
|
Background
Spina bifida is a disease were a baby developing inside its mother’s womb has a small lesion on its back exposing the spinal column. While the baby swims around the womb it hits the uterus walls and if the exposed spinal column hits the uterus walls the spinal nerves can be damaged. By the time the baby is brought to term irreversible damage is done. The results differ depending on the extent of the harm with some children being able to control their bowels and walk using crutches but others are forced to use wheel chairs, suffer from learning problems and endure endless operations to fix chronic life threatening issues.
Enter the doctors
In 1992 two doctors, Dr. Joseph Bruner and Dr. Noel Tulipan, met for lunch at Vanderbilt hospital. Tulipan treated many spina bifida patients but felt that the damage could be lessoned if the lesion or opening that allowed the spinal damage could be closed as soon as it was detected. At the time, technology forced surgeons to wait until the baby was delivered before they could close the spinal column. Burner seeing the potential of a pre-birth operation suggested the two work together to perfect a surgical operation where they would operate on the foetus in the womb, "The idea," Tulipan recalls, "was that we could prevent enough of the secondary injuries, so that more spina bifida children would have a chance to walk."
The two spent years practising and perfecting the operation before
settling on a procedure where they would remove the uterus, place it
on the mother’s stomach, drain the amniotic fluid, operate on the
fetus, refill the uterus, place it back in the mother and then allow
the baby to continue full term. The operation soon had some success
and word began to spread. Letters and emails starting pouring in.
Some letters were from grown spina bifida patients who felt that the
operation was playing god, risking the life of the fetus in order to
create a “perfect” baby. However, most of the communication was from
desperate parents willing to risk the surgery.
↓ Article continues below ↓
 Most Famous Pictures * Browse Images * Altered Images * War * Famous Portraits * All Categories
 | |||
|
 
| 
| |
Not one but two
The pictures circling the Internet are actually of two babies undergoing the new Vanderbilt procedure. One picture is of Trish and Mike Switzer's baby, Sarah Marie and the other popular shot is of the Armas’ baby, Samuel Armas. Both are being operated on by the two Vanderbilt surgeons Dr. Bruner and Dr. Tulipan.
Sarah Marie Switzer
| The Switzer baby shot was taken by photographer Max Aguilera-Hellweg for LIFE magazine. During the, July 1, 1999, operation he captured the moment Dr. Bruner gently placed Sarah Marie's hand back into the uterus. "She's going to be beautiful," he recalled saying.
Her parents would agree when on August 22, 1999 almost two months after having the surgery Sarah Marie Switzer was born. Born nine weeks premature, doctors were amazed at the health of the baby and allowed Sarah Marie to go home with her parents in early Sept. Sarah Marie showed none of the signs of extreme spina bifida and even kicked her legs as an infant rare in most spina bifida patients. |  Sarah Marie's arm |
Samuel Armas
Samuel Armas' parents, Alex and Julie, discovered that Samuel had spina bifida during an ultrasound at 14 weeks. Doctors offered to terminate the pregnancy as the risks of delivering a healthy baby are rare. Julie refused to accept this solution and with her family scoured the net for information about the disease. It was then she came across the Vanderbilt procedure being preformed by Bruner and Tulipan. She quickly raised the money, as an experimental procedure American insurance companies refuse to pay for the operation, and performed the surgery during the 21st week of surgery.
The Armas's family also allowed the operation to be photographed and let Nashville free-lance photographer Michael Clancy take pictures of the Aug. 19, 1999 operation, the 54th mother to undergo the procedure. Clancy’s picture eventually was published as part of a Sept. 7 1999 story in USA TODAY. From there other media picked it up and it quickly spread around the world.
| This photo has become an icon … Depending on your political point of view, this is either Samuel Armas reaching out of the uterus and touching the finger of a fellow human, or it's me pulling his hand out of the uterus ... which is what I did. … The baby did not reach out the baby was anaesthetized. The baby was not aware of what was going on. | 
|
Both mother and fetus were drugged and would not have been able to move on their own and according to Dr. Tulipan, who closed the hole in Samuel's spine, at 21 weeks Samuel, “would have no ability to reach out and grab anything,"
Clancy the photographer offers a different version where he claims that little Samuel “thrust” his arm out of the uterus incision and Clancy took a picture when the surgeon, “reached over and lifted the hand, which reacted and squeezed the doctor's finger. As if testing for strength, the doctor shook the tiny fist. Samuel held firm.” The medical journal write up of the operation offers this version of events:
|
| [J]ust as surgeon Dr. Joseph Bruner was closing the incision in Julie Armas' uterus, Samuel's thumbnail-sized hand flopped out. Bruner lifted it gently and tucked it back in. |
|
Whatever happened, a healthy Samuel was born on Dec 2, 1999 and almost four years later, on September 25 2003 Alex and Julie Armas testified before the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Science, Technology, and Space about the photo and their experience with the surgery. Samuel was also present and his father said, "Today, Samuel is nearly four years old and has not had to endure the surgeries that are common for most children with spina bifida. He's walking with leg braces, is cognitively normal, and loves looking for bugs."
The Drudge Connection
In Nov 1999 the right wing news gossip guru, Matt Drudge, had a Saturday night television show called Drudge on the Fox News Channel. Drudge wanted to show Samuel’s image on his Nov 13 show but Fox news directors refused to allow Matt to display the image. He refused to go back on air crying censorship and the two parties supposedly, “amicably”, went their separate ways with the November 6, 1999 episode of Drudge being the last.
Fox News directors refused to allow the airing of the picture because they feared that Drudge, a stanch anti-abortionist, would use the picture to further his argument against late term abortions. The news directors felt that this use would miss-represent a picture that they felt represented a break through medical procedure for spina bifida NOT a picture to be used for or against abortion.
Buy it to Kill it
When Michael Clancy took the picture of little Samuel he had no idea that he was going to get in a life altering experience and at the same time battle LIFE. In fact when he initially took the picture he didn't even know if the shot was in focus. To prevent digital manipulation of images USA Today requires that all film be submitted unprocessed. So he had to wait until 10 days after he submitted the film before he finally heard that the photos turned out alright. USA Today loved the shots and the photo editor called saying, "It's the most incredible picture I've ever seen." They were published on September 7th, 1999 in USA Today and The Tennessean Newspaper with the Clancy's caption, that Samuel reached out on his own.
When Clancy's picture was released he didn't realize it but he was scoping, at the time, one of the biggest magazines in the world, LIFE magazine. They had Max Aguilera-Hellweg take the Switzer baby shot and were planning to do a big story called "Born Twice" in their December 1999 issue. Their photo was posed and as Clancy asserted his picture wasn't, the baby reached out on its own. Also, the Switzer baby operation was taken at 24 weeks into the pregnancy, while the shot of Samuel was taken at the 21 week mark.
Clancy offered to sell the picture to LIFE and initially they agreed. Clancy's agent told him over the phone, "They do want to buy your picture. They want to buy it to kill it." The photojournalist quickly told him no way and that if LIFE didn't buy it to print then he would spread the shots through multiple media outlets and thus kill the LIFE magazine big breaking news item as by then the story would be old news. After negotiation's that went on over four days LIFE eventually decided to pass on the photo and true to his word Clancy aggressively published his photo so by the time December rolled around LIFE had buried their story and picture in the back of their Dec issue.
Mike Clancy thought he had won his little battle but then a bomb dropped. Dr. Bruner, whose hands which are present in both shots, released a statement where he stated, "The baby did not reach out, The baby was anaesthetized. The baby was not aware of what was going on." This directly contradicted what Mike Clancy stated and published in his caption where he claimed that Samuel reached out on his own. The doctor's statement in Clancy's opinion "stripped any credibility" that he had as a journalist. His Editors and co-workers were soon asking why he lied about the picture but Clancy stuck to his guns always claiming that Samuel reached out and grasped Dr. Bruner's hand. Even though the photographer was eventually forced to leave his profession as a result of the caption discrepancy he doesn't blame Bruner stating, "He’s an incredible surgeon but [he] simply could not admit the unborn child came out from under the anesthesia too soon."
Results
Dr Bruner, while acknowledging that his experimental surgery is still in the early development stages and poses significant risks, he looks to a future where this surgery will be preformed across the world, offering incredible promises to parents of unborn children with birth defects.
Other science images
| Baby Hand
|
Jan 15 2011 3:04 am
In 1986 my Son was hit by a car and sustained head injuries, massive cuts and brusies, he was taken to Vanderbilt Childrens Hospital in Nashville, TN and Dr. Noel B. Tulipan was his doctor a surgeon and neurologists. At that time Dr. Tulipan was one of the best. My Son survived and is now 33. It took my Son almost 20 years for his brain to slow down to a speed to where he can consintrate a little more, he is disabled. I can not belive that Dr. Tulipan would deny that a baby would reach out and grab onto his or any other doctors hand while doing surgery to save the baby's life. I might believe the Dr. Bruner would because I have never met him. But this story tell me that Dr. Tulipan can not be trusted any more. I know nurses and employees of Vanderbilt and they have told me that babies do it all of the time, that is that the baby reaches out and grabs the hand of the doctor. It is such a miraculous miricle this happens and for a doctor to deny it is wrong. It makes a person think how much money doctors make from patients then turn around and make more money from the media to cover up the truth. Makes you wish God Almighty would take away some of these doctors talents. Makes you wonder how many doctors have any ethics left. I guess some doctors are in the profession just for the money. Next thing you will be reading in well known magazines and newspapers is that doctors are euthonizing the elderly for kick backs from the insurance companies and from the government that would take care of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, TenCare, etc. Look how much abortions save in medical expenses and welfare. I believe the reporter as his pictures and the framework that the pictures are taken show the truth, that makes the doctors liers. I'm sorry that doctors would ruin a young mans caree. Just remember God knows it all. By the way my Son's stepmother works for Vanderbilt.
Jan 16 2011 2:34 am
I think that the photographer was unaware of what happened and thought that the baby squeezed the doctor's hand. The doctor isn't lying because baby's require less ansthesia and with it in the mother's system as well, the baby got extra. The doctor holds the baby's hand. Relex your hand for a moment. Your fingers curl. The baby's wet fingers curled and stuck (wet) to the doctor's gloves. If the baby had awoken, it would need to be put back to sleep for the rest of the operation and seeing as there is no mention of that, either the photographer was lying or mistaken.
Jan 16 2011 2:36 am
Debra:
im sorry about ur son but what does tht hav 2 do w/anything? lohla:
yea exactly i ttly agree the dr was prbly telling the truth hey debra u wanna talk about theyre in it 4 $ how about the photographer tryin 2 publish 4 $Jan 16 2011 2:40 am
Jayne, you don't have to be rude, but I do see your point. Who cares if anyone lied though? A "miracle"? The fetus' heart starts beating at five weeks old and it kicks. It's not a miracle. Money doesn't have anything to do with it- what would the dr get out of lying? If anything, the dr would get more out of saying the baby reached out & trusted him, etc. The photographer obviously lied.
Feb 10 2011 12:07 am
Debbie,.,
Maybe the Dr just didnt want it to seem like he was trying to make more of it than it was...I really dont see what money had anything to do with his comments...If that s not how he saw it...well , he was there, no one else. Im not understanding where you're concern is....The picture will be interpretted how the VIEWER...whomever they be, see it..period...Let it be...ITs profound regardless...and I cry everytime I see it.....Sep 14 2011 3:59 am
Think about it, even if the fetus could reach out and grab his hand, it was knocked out under heavy anesthesia. It was unconscious and as and unconscious person, couldn't respond to it's surroundings.
Sep 28 2011 5:37 pm
It is a touching picture, but let's not get carried away. Babies have hardly any conscious muscle control when they come out of the womb. You assume they have more when they are even younger? Also, a baby's hand will grab onto pretty much anything you put into it by reflex. Reflexes we share with the apes, I might add. Babies also try to grab onto things with their toes. It's not a miracle. It's science.
Sep 29 2011 8:04 pm
I'm baffled that in this day and age people could be foolish enough to imagine an aesthetised fetus could reach out and grab the doctor's finger -- anyone familiar with human anatomy could tell you that this arm is not positioned properly to have reached and pulled. Come on people, stop being so superstitious.
Sep 30 2011 3:46 am
I am a nurse in labour and delivery and I'm now sure if "Wayne F" is a father or has ever witnessed a birth, but it is a miracle. I see it everyday, and every single one is a miracle from God.
Oct 14 2011 10:02 pm
Debra your comment sounds absolutely ridiculous. Please reread and rethink your comment because you sound like an uneducated and outspoken moron. Do you actually think that a unborn baby knows that there is a hand outside waiting to be grasped? Do you think that Samuel was aware of what was going on? Babies learn by experience, and he hadn't experienced anything other than being in a womb up until that moment. Regarding the photo, I am amazed every day by technology and by the dedicated health professionals who strive to keep our people healthy and help them to lead better, less painful lives!!!
Jan 24 2012 9:55 pm
The embryo develops reflexes ( 13. ) and is capable of motion ( 3.) as early as the sixth week of gestation, and by eight weeks the Association for Pre- and Peri-Natal Psychology and Health states that these movements show evidence of being voluntary rather than reflexive. These movements, early in gestation, are spontaneous and endogenous. The embryo is capable of responding to stimulation, but more frequently moves for no outwardly apparent reason ( 3. ). Dr. Harley Smyth, a neurologist, testified before the Canadian Supreme Court that "at 6 weeks [gestational age - 8 weeks gestation or LMP] there is the possibility of recording electrical activity from the nervous system already so highly organized that it can subserve . . . purposeful and even co-ordinated movements." (5.) At six weeks development, there is no motor cortex in the brain, the cerebellum has not been differentiated from the rest of the hindbrain, and the spinal cord is incomplete. Yet motion occurs, and thought may also be beginning. This gives evidence to the theory that, rather than forming and then beginning to function, embryonic organs function as they form. Learning, therefore, may begin to take place far before the brain structures traditionally thought to be necessary for conscious thought are present. For all those that say a fetus is not capable because it needs to grow and experience, a fetus is not just a fetus it is a living human being, and deserves the respect of one, we were all created with wisdom and capabilities, they are all miracles, you were one too when you were in the womb, your life was very valuable to your parents and if you didn't get their love there is still the love of your creator, the photo whether the baby grabbed or not is still a miracle in my eyes, bless them all who now thanks to the ability God gave these doctors to save their precious lives.
Jan 03 2013 1:55 pm
Yes, life and birth is amazing. We in this society must also see feeding and nurturing this same life with the breast milk any time or place is not offensive in any way shape or form. Please those who do find it offensive TO BREAST FEED IN PUBLIC get over these warped thoughts. TO ALL THE MOMS OUT THERE THAT FEEDING AND NURTURING THEIR BABIES WHEN NEEDED, ANY PLACE ANY WHERE, I THANK YOU. IF ALL NEW LIFE CAN HAVE THIS KIND OF NURTURING WHEN POSSIBLE WE WILL HAVE A BETTER SOCIETY DUE TO. THIS IS LIFE EMBRASE IT.