Siamese Twins

Molly

What does everyone think of the on going feud between the parents and the doctors weather to seperate the siamese twins so one might live or let them both die? Do you think it should be let to the parents to decide or the doctors? Personally i think that if if was up to me i'd have to seperate them so that one of them has a chance of living but thats just my opinion what are yere opinions on this?

Venom

They should be seperated so that one twin has a chance to live.They have said that the twin that will probley live,will be able to have a completly normal life(as in no scars and body type defects).The perants seem to be some sort of god fearing fanatics.I think that the twin that lives should be taken off them and put in a good home.

pat kenny

Couple of years back a woman in england was going to have I think 8children all at once,
she was told that all might die if they did not selectively abort some of the the babies
well it was her decision and the law didnt interfear even though in this instance more lives were at risk,church and right-to-life campainers supported her.Well she got her way and went ahead with a normal pregnancy,all 8 died.Even though these were't born yet the situation is still the same and thats why I recon the english government didnt want a repeat incedent.

---

O man it's total grid-lock.

TwoShedsJackson

Not only did right to lifers support Mandy Allwood (the women with octuplets), but they paid her not to have any of them aborted.

It's just one of those twisted Catholic guilt things - they would rather have all 8 die naturally then have some of them die unnaturally so that two or three can be saved.

As for the Siamese twins, the parents are apparently devout Catholics from Eastern Europe, and don't want them seperated. For some fu<ked up reason they would rather have them both die so as not to pi$$ off a deity for whom there is absolutely no proof of exsistence.

If they were my kids I'd have them seperated, on the other hand as a firm beleiver in free choice it's up to the parents if they want to needlessly let the one who could be saved, die.

Hobbes

Originally posted by Castor Troy:
Not only did right to lifers support Mandy Allwood (the women with octuplets), but they paid her not to have any of them aborted.

I thought it was the tabloid press that paid her not too.

C B

This boils down to one simple question. Does the state have a right to dictate how parents raise their children? I think that we must start from the premise that the general answer is no, and then build up the special circumstances where the state may intervene. These must include physical and sexual abuse, incitement to hatred. In my opinion they do not include forced seperation of these twins.

However, to conclude, if they were my children I would agree to the seperation.

Shiminay

Do they know which twin they'd be letting live? If not, as a choice - it must be incredibly hard to make - taking the "moral" implications out of it. How do you decide which twin lives?

If I were in that position, I'd probably have them seperated.

---

All the best,

Dav
@B^)
My page of stuff

BossArky

they should flip a coin

Blitzkrieger

Originally posted by BossArky:
they should flip a coin

An inciteful thrust right to the heart of a sensitive matter

Christ man - show some sensitvity.


It seems blindingly obivious that they should seperate them and give one a chance at life.

Manach

My view is that they should be seperated if it were certain both would die otherwise. But it ahould be the parents call, for I don't believe it is the governments place to decide who lives & dies in normal social circumstances, but whatever happens the family involved will know grief.

Draco

Originally posted by Kharn:
Do they know which twin they'd be letting live?

One of the twins is living off the others organs, so it would be the one to die as its own organs cannot support it. That's what I've gathered anyway.

K.

BossArky

If they save one twin and the other dies what do you think the physcological impact would be on the twin who survives would be when he/she actually understands what happened to his/her twin to let him/her live.

?

[This message has been edited by BossArky (edited 07-09-2000).]

Draco

Originally posted by BossArky:
If they save one twin and the other dies what do you think the physcological impact would be on the twin who survives would be when he/she actually understands what happened to his/her twin to let him/her live.

It would probably be best not to tell him that they had a twin. I would say the mentalscaring could be more than they could handle.

Draco

TwoShedsJackson

Perhaps that twin would be grateful to have a life however, as opposed to being dead. And Arky less of that 'flip a coin' crap if you don't mind - I'm trying to keep the Humanities board the realm of semi-intelligent debate.

BossArky

Well Castor, that is the way that it will be decided anyway, unless one is dependant on the others organs. How would you choose between them? It's just a tough decision that has to be made. Imagine if you were the parent and the doctors told you that you had to decide which of them to save otherwise both would die, what would you do? It comes down to a choice, fliping a coin would have the same outcome.

Hope this is semi-intelligent enough for you.

By the way Draco, how could you manage to keep the secret of a dead twin from the surviver?

C B

Castor,

The important question here is not whether you agree with the parents (everybody has an opinion on this and nobody has a monopoly on the best choice - it's a dilly of a pickle). The real crux of the matter is do those of us who disagree with the parents (which appears to be everyone posting here) have the right to force their opinions on the parents, by means of state orders.
Could the KKK demand that all black children be forced to have a "Michael Jackson" operation to turn them white, thus relieving them of the great burden that being a "man of colour" would bring? Obviously this would be wrong and obviously this is an exageration.
As my first post stated I believe that there are time when the state must intervene, such as sexual abuse, but we must have rules to guide such intervention. The parents are undoubtably in control of their mental faculties and are acting (in their opinion) in the best interests of their children. If we let the state intervene here where will it stop?

Conor.


P.S. I am not a lunatic American anti-statist militia man. I just believe we need strict limits to the power of the state over its people.

Draco

Originally posted by BossArky:
By the way Draco, how could you manage to keep the secret of a dead twin from the surviver?

Not to sound filpant, but not telling the child for a start. They are very young at the moment - only a few months old, if that. If there is a scar, just say they had to operate to remove a tumor or something.

Draco

C B

Draco,

Its not that easy. As somebody facing a similar (if much less serious) problem of hiding the truth from a child I can gauruntee that honesty is the best policy. The surviving child would have to be told at some point not because its the morally correct thing to do but because they are going to find out something at some point.

Conor

Blitzkrieger

Originally posted by C B:
If we let the state intervene here where will it stop?

Am......where we want it to stop. Isn't that the whole point of a democracy. Though I suppose it's really where whoever has the best campaign says it should stop.

C B

Blitz,

If parents in a predominently Catholic (insert religion of your choice) decide that they which to raise their children as athiests the rest of society would deem these childrens lives to be pointless as they have no hope of eternal salvation. In this case would it be right for the majority to force the parents to raise the children as Catholics? If you answer no to this then your earlier point is simply based on a prejudiced belief system.

I am not religious. I raise my child as an athiest. I send him to a multi-denominational school. These are my beliefs. I have no prove that a higher power does not exist. My beliefs are just that beliefs - they are based on personal conviction and experience. I have no monoploy on truth.

My basic point is this. If we are to allow the majority to interfer with the choices of a minority we must have rules to guide the intervention. This is the premise on which government in a liberal democracy is based. The only remaining point for debate is what should the rules be. It is my belief that in the case of the state intervening between a child and his/her parents the rules should be as follows;
1. Is the parent acting, in their opinion, in the best interest of the child? This rule would make child abuse (in all its forms) illegal, as it is done for the gratification of the parent not the benefit of the child.
2. Are the parents in full command of their mental faculties? This rule would preclude the lunatic who shoot their kids to "save" them.
(Perhaps we could add a third rule stopping parents raising their kids in a manner that would be social destructive i.e. imbuing them with racsist sentiment. I'm not sure how such a law could be worded so as not to open the floodgates)
In my opinion the parents in this case do not break either of these rules and therefore their wishes should be obeyed.

BossArky

Draco, in all honesty, you could not keep that sort of a secret from a child:

1..it would be impossible

2..if you were a loving parent you would not be able to keep the truth from the child, no matter how much it may be hurtful, it's just one of those things that you have to do honestly.

BossArky

where can I get news on these twins?

C B

Originally posted by Blitzkrieger:
Am......where we want it to stop. Isn't that the whole point of a democracy. Though I suppose it's really where whoever has the best campaign says it should stop.

Laws are not changed that easily, nor are elections decided on one issue. A question such as this should be resolved by the constitution/ constiutional ammendment, because in the realm of state intervention we need hard and fast rules. The rights (and duties) of citizens and the responibilities/competencies of the state need to be addressed thoroughly in the constitution. Letting issues like this be decided by election would be to open the door to fascism.


[This message has been edited by C B (edited 07-09-2000).]

[This message has been edited by C B (edited 07-09-2000).]

Hobbes

Originally posted by BossArky:
they should flip a coin

May sound insensitive but he's correct.

Unless there is some way to prove one will cause the illness of the other, then letting fate deceide is better then playing god.

It would of been more tasteless for to ooh say ask the parents which one do they think looks cuter.

C B

Hobbes,

Please read all the posts before you reply. There is no choice to be made about which will live and which will die. Mary is entirely dependent on the organs of Jody



[This message has been edited by C B (edited 07-09-2000).]

Hobbes

Kill Mary so.

pat kenny

HMMM I think we are getting things confused here this isnt a case of a man not wanting to send his kids to school or something like that,the life of one of the countries citizens is in danger and the way they say it Mary is allready dead so the state intervens to save the life of jody.
Heres a question about the legal system,if someones child of lets say 8 years old is going to die of Cancer if it dosent have a tumor removed but the Parents refuse to have the treatment done,it leaves the realm of the way a parent raises a child and goes into the realm of one of the states citizens life being at risk.Yes The state is fully within its rights to save the life of the child of both the fictional child and of JODY.

---

O man it's total grid-lock.

C B

O.K. Lets get some facts in here to inform the debate.
The twins have already been named Mary and Jodie. Mary is completly reliant on Jodie. Doctors believe that if Mary is seperated Jodie will go on to have a normal life and if they are not then both will die within six months (doctors aren't infallible by the way. Given this information the natural parents have decided that the children should be allowed to live as they were born and whatever happens happens.

Now lets get a little bit more subjective. The parents are acting, with good faith, in the interests of their children. Nobody has any reason to believe that the parents are pschyologicly incapacitated or unstable (unfortunately our society deems religious belief to be rational).

Now can anybody tell me what right the state has to interfer with the choice of loving and rational* parents.

*Disclaimer: As I already said in an earlier post I disagree with the choice the parents are making.

TwoShedsJackson

As CB says, one is dependent on the other's organs, therefore there is no choice about who lives or dies.

The parents are indeed acting as their religious faith would seem to dictate - however I simply do not see how they or anyone else can think they are acting in the children's best interest to let them both die, when one could live.

This would scarcely be the first time a state has interfered with the children of loving and rational parents - what about the kids who were put up for enforced adoption when they were born out of wedlock earlier this century? Then they are abused in places like the Magdalen Laundries, or in 'industrial schools', getting raped and abused by other inmates and staff?

What gets me here is that the parents are willing to let the child who has a chance, die, to appease their imaginary friend. How much longer will this sort of behaviour be acceptable - Jehovah's Witnesses or starting to rethink their attitudes to blood transfusions (some of them, anyway).

Obviously the parents would never have considered having an abortion if they were told of their children's condition prior to the birth, which probably would have been detected via scans. Now they are exercising the very same power of life and death over their child - the height of hypocrisy.

Blitzkrieger

The bottom line is that they are choosing to murder both their children instead of murdering one. The issue is of course more complicated than that but at the end of the day that's what it boils down to. It's almost un-belivable that the parents wouldn't choose to let Jody live and I think the state has to step in and force the issue.

C B

This is an emotional case. We can't make law by emotional case. What is happening in the High Court in London is setting a legal precedent for the state right to intervene between "capable" parents and their children. Many people choose to raise their children in a manner that not everyone agrees with (I think its wrong for parents to baptise their children, I think it is wrong to use slapping as a form of discipline)but with this precendent set the state will have an ability to enforce its opinion in areas where we may not agree. Case law is not easy to change, even in a healthy democracy. Issues like this have to be decided in a more rigorous fashion.rules for state intervention must be set in stone. I have put forward what I believe these rules should be, pat kenny has put forward a different opinion allowing the state to intervene based on medical evidence of possible death. Does anybody else have semi-intelligent comments to add on this as opposed to taking a ridicolously simplistic attitude to a complex issue?

[This message has been edited by C B (edited 08-09-2000).]

UNIFLU

People,

Its not about state interveining etc.

The matter at heart is the parents decision to or not to seperate the children. Personally I think they shuld be seperated and the weaker allowed to die to prevent the death of both. Unfortunately in the end of things, the parents are the ones who will have to decide wether to kill their own flesh and blood. That sort of decision has to be the wors thing a parent could be asked to do so it would be understandable for the parents to decide against the seperation of their children due to the fact that they simply cant choose one of their children. Maybe the coin would be the only and fairest way to choose (providing either could live on their own).

C B

Uniflu,

Its ALL about the state intervening.

The parents have made their decision (which I disagree with but accept) and now the High Court has intervened to allow doctors deny the wishes of the parents.

Conor.

C B

I think I'll let Thomas Jefferson have the last word.

"Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual"
-- Thomas Jefferson

pat kenny

The state is intervening to save someones life.<- thats a full stop
If someone is stabbing you on the street but your parents say to the cops "naw just leave him to die"
Do you think the cops would?
(you are a minor under 18 for the purpouse of this story)

---

O man it's total grid-lock.

C B

2 questions.

1) Is it right for a majority religion to force its whacko beliefs one the rest of prejudice which has no place in a liberal democracy. Only those that can answer yes to society?

2) Is it right for a majority of rational scientific people to ban insane religions?

If you can give different answers to these questions you are revealing an arrogant prejudice which has no place in a liberal democracy. Only if you can answer yes to BOTH of these questions can you, in good conscience, allow the state to intervene in this case. I personnally answer no to both. Thank God I live in a constitutional democracy and not somewhere where the House of Lords are the arbitrators of truth!!

[This message has been edited by C B (edited 08-09-2000).]

[This message has been edited by C B (edited 08-09-2000).]

C B

We are not discussing murder here. The parents have decided to follow their religious beliefs rather than medical advice. The state has no right to intervene. If I were put in this situation I would choose the medical advice. But doctors are not infallible and they might be wrong.

pepperkin

new to board, but tossing in my views after reading all the posts on this case...
IMOHO, I would have the babies separated. (And for Draco, at the risk of sounding like some new age freak, the surviving twin would know without being told, and only resent the lies told her, it's best to be honest, she may not know exactly WHAT she knows, but she would KNOW that something in her life felt "off".)
However by the same token I feel it is the parents choice, based on religion, superstition, or whatever you like, to choose what operations the child should have. I would hate to have that decision taken out of my hands as a parent. They are not abusing their children, they are smiply making their own choice, and it had to be a VERY hard one to make! The government doesn't own the people, it governs the people legally. That does not include deciding that parents can't make decisions for their own children in medical terms. If this is acceptable, whats next? The government telling me what I can and can't feed my children? What clothes they wear? What their bedtime must be? Insidiously, the "public" worms it's way into the private lives of others with no objective save to be nosy and feel their "power" and that I feel is wrong.

C B

Pepperkin

Congratulations on an eloquent and succinct first post

PhilipMarlowe

Wasn't there a case recently where some parents wouldn't allow their child to undergo vital surgery because they wouldn't allow him/her to receive a blood transfusion due to religious beliefs....? Wasn't there intervention in this case...?
I may have the facts mixed up but I believe that it was along those lines...

Now IMHO, intervention in the above is entirely justified because ok...so it goes against your belief but nobody is harmed (physically) and on the contrary, a life was saved...although you may be a bit upset...

However, in the case of the twins.....damnit its to hard to put in to words.....especially when my child is having a fit in my arms...

Ok... I couldn't go for seperation...now this isn't based on religious belief or anything...after us just going through a pregnancy and birth, you realise that the child in the womb has a personality...is a person...this I didn't understand before...
now, I agree with a persons right to choose...if they choose an abortion..thats their decision and their responsibility...i certainly would not be a decision I'd make but if it's your's...so be it...

But the weaker of those twins, despite not having the major organs, IMO, is an individual...and I would understand a parents decision to let nature take it's course

[This message has been edited by Licksy20 (edited 11-09-2000).]

pepperkin

Thank you, CB.

On the same token, in the USA some parents for religious or other reasons can decline to get their children the required vaccinations. Theres a checkmark on the vaccination record..."I as a parent choose not to get these vaccinations for my child for religious reasons."
And yet these children are still allowed to go to school. Granted, if one of them comes to my kids school with polio or measles, my kids are inoculated and therefore aren't half as likely to pick it up, but what about the poorer kids who might not be up to date on their shots? Does that seem fair, that the gov't can take it out of the hands of parents to save their own child and not affect kids outside their family, and yet the gov't can't mandate inoculations for ALL kids, religion or no?
I realize I am shooting down my own argument about the parents choice. I STILL believe in parents choice, even on the case of the inoculations. It is their right to raise their kids as they like, my point is (rather muddled at this point, I think...) is what is the difference from the gov'ts standpoint between kids being inoculated against a variety of diseases, or having an operation?
Here in the USA a child was recently taken from her parents home and put into foster care for being "too fat" and they decided she would better be taken care of outside the home. (The kid is 3 years old and 120 lbs, or 8.5 stone. Essentially, this 3 year old weighs more than I do at 26.)
Was that fair? Who knows...

---

I am woman, hear me squeak...

C B

Good points Pepperkin but they are different situations to the case of the twins.

Yes you are right to say that parents should be alloweed to choose not to have their children vaccinated. however if the state intervened in this case it would be to protect the "poorer" children not to reduce the choices available to the religious parent. the best way to go about this is universal availability of vacinations in schools (this is the way the system works in Ireland). This promotes the ability of individuals to make choices.

In relation to the fat child this was probably just a case of half-assed parenting. Therefore the state has a right to intervene. The child did not get fat because the parent chose this option but rather because they chose to do nothing about it. They did not ignore medical advice on idealogical grounds but rather on grounds of laziness.

thats my two cents anyway,
Conor

[This message has been edited by C B (edited 13-09-2000).]

Blitzkrieger

I whole-heartadly support the state's interferance. I can't imagine that any parent would allow their children to die because it is "God's will". Where would that sort of thinking end? If you beleive that then all medical treatment would be against gods will.

"No you can't have a anti-venom cos god wanted you to die of snake-bite. Yes that's right - an omnipitant being who nobody can prove exists wants little old you to die of snake-bite."

Jak

In the case of that child in the US, the state has every right to intervene.

In that case it would appear that the rights of the child should be protected rather than those of Parental discretion.

Having read through all the posts, my only point would be that the rights of the parents to raise their child as they wish should not obscure the rights of the child.

Many of the points made, depict a child as little more than a possession of the parents.
Something to mould as they see fit and raise to be what they want it to be.

A child is in the care of its parents - it is not their property. If care (as defined by the people of the society) is not being given - I would hope the state would intervene.

JAK.

PhilipMarlowe

It was interesting to hear the views of a pair of conjointed twins on Sky News today... They were of the opinion that unless the doctors could 100% guarantee the survival of one child, then they should not attempt a seperation... (these twins were joined at the head...one had spina-bifida and was totally dependent on the other, yet as an entity, they lived on a 15th storey apt. in new york, i think, and were not dependent on anybody else...they were about 35...)
They were also both quite individual and independent (besides phtsically) and this re-affirms my belief that not to seperate them is the more desirable of the two difficult choices...and I don't envy the judge in this case...


[This message has been edited by Licksy20 (edited 13-09-2000).]

Bard

I do believe that the kids should have been seperated, but I believe that this should have been the parents' decision. i.e.: I believe that the parents should not have decided as they did. The state should never have intervened in any way, in my opinion. If the parents decided not to go ahead with it, that's their perogative, - although I don't agree with the choice the parents were making, it was their choice to make.

This could be debated on and on ad infinitum though, - there's always going to be certain situations where the circumstances aren't black and white or perfectly clear cut. If they were my kids, I'd have had them seperated. I'd disagree with the decision of any parent not to do so, but I wouldn't force my opinion on them, and neither should the government! - rather I'd do my best to respect their decision, no matter how costly or wrong it seems to me.

---

Bard
_____
-me-

C B

blitz,

i'll refer you to your earlier post. "where we want it to". Take it!!

But seriously people have a right to choose what they believe in. I believe in science but even science requires "leaps of faith" it does not give absolute truth. To say that someday science will reveal all is like saying someday we shall understand all in the loving arms of Jesus. It is all based upon faith, whether you like it or not. As I said earlier nobody has a monopoly on truth everybody has a right to their beliefs and opinions (however crazy I might think they are)

In relation to the child being a "posession":
These twins are not capable of acting on their own behalf. they can not weight up the options and act as their beliefs dictate. Therefore somebody has to make a choice on their behalf. Should that somebody be their parents, acting on their beliefs, or the state, acting on its beliefs?

[This message has been edited by C B (edited 13-09-2000).]

Jak

Originally posted by C B:
blitz,

i'll refer you to your earlier post. "where we want it to". Take it!!

I believe Blitz' point was that leaving things to fate where we can intervene and save a life is a poor idea. Not that the state would arbitrarily deny an antidote to a poisoned man.

Originally posted by C B
In relation to the child being a "posession": These twins are not capable of acting on their own behalf. they can not weight up the options and act as their beliefs dictate. Therefore somebody has to make a choice on their behalf. Should that somebody be their parents, acting on their beliefs, or the state, acting on its beliefs?

If the parents beliefs do not conflict with the law of the land, then their beliefs should be respected.

If their beliefs or actions are a violation of the law of the land, then the state should intervene.

JAK.

If the law does not suit you - try to change it or try another country with different laws.



[This message has been edited by Jak (edited 13-09-2000).]

C B

Originally posted by Jak:


If the law does not suit you - try to change it or try another country with different laws.

Andrew,

You already know my answer to this question, but seeing as how you want to raise it again on the boards I'll have to put you in your place again.

Liberal Democracies must set out precisely what the rights and duties of the state and it's citizens are (most countries do this by means of a constitution). This constitution must be acceptable to the vast majority (if not all) or the democracy is doomed to failure. The north of Ireland is a perfect example of this, where almost half the population disagrre with the very foundations of the state.

In your simplistic view of democracy (which blitz seems to share) the majority has the right to do whatever it wants to an oppressed minority. They can gerrymander constituencies (unionists in the north), enslave (confederates in the US), attempt to exterminate (NAZIs in Germany, and all in the name of a healthy democracy.

But don't worry if you are a member of a minority Andrew says you can leave if you want.

That is of course until the majority ban the right to travel!! (I mean their well within their rights)

But maybe I'm getting carried away.

What country would attempt to ban the right to travel…………………….

Wait didn't this state attempt to restrain this right for pregnant women. And didn't 49.5% of the population agree.

Your simplistic view of democracy as one person one vote majoritarian rule does not garuantee freedom.

That’s why democracy is not so simple.


[This message has been edited by C B (edited 13-09-2000).]

Jak

Does the minority then have the right to hold the majority at ransom?

Is 75% enough of a majority or would 76% be correct?

JAK.

Jak

Originally posted by C B:
But don't worry if you are a member of a minority Andrew says you can leave if you want.

That is of course until the majority ban the right to travel!! (I mean their well within their rights)

But maybe I'm getting carried away.

What country would attempt to ban the right to travel…………………….

Wait didn't this state attempt to restrain this right for pregnant women. And didn't 49.5% of the population agree.

The system did not fail here.

Quote me a recent example of such an extreme ruling which was passed.