Largest multiple birth

[brickbacon]

I have a bet going with a friend. We are trying to figure out what is that largest number of children born alive at once. We are receiving conflicting information. The wiki page for multiple births states the following:

The largest set in which all members survived more than a few days is septuplets, the first of which was in 1997. The largest set to have even a single member survive is octuplets, in 1998 (with the seven surviving octuplets born in Texas).

There have been a few sets of nonuplets (nine) in which a few babies were born alive, though none lived longer than a few days. There have been cases of human pregnancies that started out with ten, eleven, twelve or fifteen fetuses, but there are no known instances of live births of such high multiples in a single pregnancy. Most of these pregnancies are the result of fertility medications and assisted reproductive technology (ART), though a set of duodecaplets (twelve) was conceived spontaneously (without the aid of fertility treatments) in Argentina in 1992.

However, the list of multiple births they have states that a woman had 15 children.

In Italy on July 22, 1971, 15 fetuses were removed from a mother’s womb by Dr. Gennaro Montanino after 4 months of pregnancy. The fetuses were identified as 10 girls and 5 boys that were 5 inches long and 5 ounces. They were conceived using fertility drugs

The wiki cite references this page. It says the following?

1971 - Unidentified (Italy, July 22 1971) 15 fetuses were removed from the mother’s womb by Dr. Gennaro Montanino after 4 months of pregnancy. She had 10 girls and 5 boys, and fertility drugs were responsible for this case. The fetuses were five inches long and five ounces in weight. The woman and her husband already had an 8 year old daughter born after similar fertility drug treatments and had wished to have another child. This was the most multiples conceived by one woman at one time.

I was saying that the use of the term “fetus” means they were not alive. She states that it’s ambiguous. What do you guys think?

[History_Mystery_and_the_Wolf]

Seems fairly clear to me that the fetuses did not survive extraction, especially considering the extreme prematurity.

[Aspidistra]

From the wiki page on prem births:

@wikipedia

Amillia Taylor is also often cited as the most-premature baby.[74] She was born on 24 October 2006 in Miami, Florida, at 21 weeks and 6 days gestation.[75] Though this report has created some confusion her gestation was measured from the date of conception (through IVF) rather than the date of her mother’s last menstrual period making her appear 2 weeks younger than if gestation was calculated by the more common method.[70] At birth she was 9 inches (23 cm) long and weighed 10 ounces (283 grams).[74] She suffered digestive and respiratory problems, together with a brain hemorrhage. She was discharged from the Baptist Children’s Hospital on 20 February 2007.[74]

The fifteen fetuses you reference were born at something like sixteen or seventeen weeks. It’s not possible any of them would have survived.

[MandaJo]

Is it even possible that any of them would even have drawn breath? I am pretty sure not–lungs are still pretty undeveloped at that stage.

[Cazzle]

It seems like* it was either a termination of the pregnancy or a selective reduction, aborting the majority of fetuses to give the remainder a shot at life. In that situation, I don’t think there would be a priority on making sure the fetuses survived the delivery - quite the opposite.

• I googled for more information and found someone referring to it as though the 15 were reduced to 2, but there were no sources listed and every other article I found just restated the same basic facts.

[WhyNot]

@Aspidistra

From the wiki page on prem births:

She was born on 24 October 2006 in Miami, Florida, at 21 weeks and 6 days gestation.[75] Though this report has created some confusion her gestation was measured from the date of conception (through IVF) rather than the date of her mother’s last menstrual period making her appear 2 weeks younger than if gestation was calculated by the more common method.[70]

Well, if that’s true, than she was the same stage as WhyBaby, down to the day! 23 weeks and 6 days as normally counted. For what it’s worth, at the time (February of 2005), the numbers crunched for us were that at 23 weeks 0 days, 30% of babies delivered would survive, and of those that survived, 70% would NOT have significantly life-altering disabilities. At 25 weeks, 70% of babies would survive delivery and the same 70% of those would not have significantly life-altering disabilities. At 23 weeks and 6 days, the estimate given to us was 50%, but that was arrived at pretty much by averaging the two, not on charts of that actual gestational age.

ANYHOW, back to the OP: No, no way they survived. 23 weeks is the earliest an American hospital with a top level neo-natal intensive care unit will even attempt a live delivery, since the year 2005 at least. There’s no possible way for a 16 weeker, much less a very small, multiple 16 weeker, to survive, even with the best medical care possible, even today, and it was less so in 1971 when synthetic lung surfactant hadn’t been invented yet.

[brickbacon]

Thanks everybody for the replies.

[Ca3799]

Someone may lose on a technicality as one of the Texas octuplets deliverd 12 days earlier than the other seven.

So does that make them ‘born at once’? LOL

[Cazzle]

Behold! Live-born octuplets!