Siamese Twins

C B

The Nuremburg Laws

TwoShedsJackson

I would not generally regard 1935 as being 'recent' in any way.

Bard

http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/world/2000/0914/wor60.htm

Jak

CB ...

I hardly consider a comparison between a Fascist Dictator's ruling prior to a time of war and our own system of government reasonable.

Any recent Irish evidence or simply more Historical extremes?

C B

Two divorce referendums in the 1980's

C B

furthermore "historical extremes" are exactly what constitutions are designed to prevent.

We are aware from history that majorities can oppress minorities, to this extent the Nuremburg Laws are a relevant example.

In your simple view of democracy these laws are O.K. because they are acceptable to the majority.

If you believe that such attrocities would not happen again without the safegaurds provided by the universal declaration of human rights and various national constitutions then you are living in a dream world.

[This message has been edited by C B (edited 14-09-2000).]

C B

Bard,
Thanks for the reference.

If you read passed the bias in the atrticle you will notice that things were not developing "as the surgeon ... would expect". he has changed his opinion, (admittedly his new opinion my be even more of a reason for the judges to rule in his favour). does this suggest that he was not the harbinger of absolute truth to begin with?


[This message has been edited by C B (edited 14-09-2000).]

Blitzkrieger

Originally posted by Jak:
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.

Nice one. The children were not being cared for so the state was right to intervene.

As to the democracy thing - In a democracy the people rule themselves. This is always going to translate into majority rule. If the majority of people want the state to intervene - that's what will happen. TBH that the state has to intervene has left an unpleasant taste in my mouth, but I have to point to what JAK said.

C B

Blitz,

This is the question. Does ignoring medical opinion and accepting religous opinion constitite lack of care? the answer is no we must respect other peoples belief systems.
End of Story.

Blitzkrieger

I don't respect other people's religious beliefs. I though that would be apparant from the sarcastic quote type thing at the end of one of my posts.

For whatever reason, and I personnaly thing their's is insane, they are neglecting the care of their child.

C B

Sorry Blitz,

I should have realised from your user name that you were a fascist. But why do you use democracy as a shield for your rabid right wing opinions?

C B

Now would all the other fascists come out from behind the veil of majoritarianism.

Jak

Religious Beliefs are all too often the source of violence and suffering.

They are not some infallible shield behind which one may commit any deed permitted by Scripture.

---

The Doctor's conclusion in this case (regardless of how it may come about) remains correct. Both will die, where one need not.

---

Divorce is hardly an extreme example of Democracy gone wrong. You may not like it, but if the majority wish a society with or without it, that desire should be respected.

---

I ask again, should the minority be allowed to hold the majority to ransom? If 1% of this country decided to castrate their second male born child on religious grounds, should we respect their God given right to do so? Although most modern thinking would consider it Barbaric?

There will always be a minority who do not like the way things are - Attempted appeasment of all beliefs and opinions will yield a chaotic and divided society

Tell me at what level of consensus should constitutional change be accepted?

Give me a figure Conor ...

JAK.

C B

What figure are you looking for?

In my opinion the Universal declaration of human rights should be fundemental to the states existance.

Once this charter is accepted then the rights of minorities are adequately protected.

After that majoritarian rule will work.
Minorities will then not be imposing their will on majorities.

My point is that crude majoritarianism doesn't work.

Jak

Originally posted by C B:
In my opinion the Universal declaration of human rights should be fundemental to the states existance.

Once this charter is accepted then the rights of minorities are adequately protected.

After that majoritarian rule will work.

And what if I don't Accept the Charter? What if I don't like the laws that are being made?

As the then Minority, in a new Global law system, who will look after my beliefs?


Or should I bow to the will of the Majority?

C B

I believe the charter sets out explicitly what the rights of minorities are. it does not hold the majority to ransom and precludes majorities from imposing oppresive laws.

Most other demands by minorities would begin to hold the majority to ransom, any less would open the door for possible oppresion.

[This message has been edited by C B (edited 14-09-2000).]

Blitzkrieger

Originally posted by C B:
Sorry Blitz,

I should have realised from your user name that you were a fascist. But why do you use democracy as a shield for your rabid right wing opinions?

I've seen this a million times on the boards. This guy doesn't know me at all, but because it's the Internet he feels safe in calling me a facist. Most people just can't accept that they might be wrong. They have an informed discussion and when the other person doesn't come to the same conclusion as them - what they perceive as the correct conclusion - there must be something "wrong" with them. Grow up C B

C B

Originally posted by Blitzkrieger:
I don't respect other people's religious beliefs.

I think that is a good enough reason to call you a fascist.


[This message has been edited by C B (edited 15-09-2000).]

C B

Originally posted by Blitzkrieger:
because it's the Internet he feels safe in calling me a facist. Most people just can't accept that they might be wrong.

My calling you a fascist has nothing got to do with the internet. If you were in front of me I would do the same thing (ask Jak). Secondly, it is not about the fact that we disagree it is the nature of our disagreement. I am not randomly name slinging I am simply pointing out the latent fascist tendencies in your arguement. I apologise if this offends you. Sometimes the truth hurts. Given the fact that you admit you have "no respect for other peoples religous beliefs" and you believe you have a right to force your beliefs on others I deduce you are a fascist. Or maybe you just got carried away. Could you qualify your remark please?

Jak

Ok CB ..

Without getting into the fact that the two of us have healthy disagreements from time to time, I refuse to get involved in a discussion when the topic is left aside in favour of defamatory remarks regarding the people in the discussion.

It is quite simple to label somebody a fascist and leave the conversation at that. But if you fail to argue your point or respond to my questions then I have no further interest in this topic.

Originally posted by C B:
I believe the charter sets out explicitly what the rights of minorities are. it does not hold the majority to ransom and precludes majorities from imposing oppresive laws.

This is an opinion Conor. This charter may not be to everybodys liking. Who is to say that this is the perfect guideline system?

In the case at hand, two children who are now given a chance of living slightly longer together ... but zero chance of surviving past a year ... will die if the state does not intervene. One of the children even if she were to live, is in a vegatitive state and is attached at opposite angles to the other child.


Religious beliefs are being used as a shield to allow both die where one need not. No parent has the right to allow their child to die where intervention may be taken to avert it.

In any case I have made numerous posts here and responded to your questions (while you have selectively responded to my queries and opinions)

This case will be deicided soon enough, however I doubt I will be cheering the system you advocate when both children are buried to sustain it.

JAK.

Blitzkrieger

Originally posted by C B:
I think that is a good enough reason to call you a fascist.


[This message has been edited by C B (edited 15-09-2000).]

No - that's a good reason to call me an atheist.

dictionary.com :
Often Fascism
a. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.

I want a democracy to elect a goverment and set out a constitution which creates a state where the people (which boils down to majority rule) decide what the state can and cannot do. I'm not trying to force my beliefs on anyone. I'm saying that the parents beleifs should not be allowed to interfere with the care of their children.

Ever notice that a thread this long always turns into a flame war. you are a poo :P

C B

Jak,

In relation to the "defamatory remarks". I have already pointed out that it was not just idle name-calling. I believe that blitz' admition and approval of religious intolerance is a sign of fascism. I called a spade a spade, if the remark is perceived as derogatory this is not my fault, it is because most people accept that religious intolerance/fascism are bad things. I did not label somebody unfairly (perhaps their posts were rash and didn't adequately express their true opinions, this happens to all of us. I have asked for the remark to be qualified) and I certainly did not "leave the conversation at that" I defended my assertions.

I believe that I have answered each of your questions. Perhaps I could have expanded my answers but we are both busy and we are simply running over old ground for the benefit of the readers of the boards. I apologise if you feel I have not responded adequately.
The charter as I have stated (perhaps imperfectly) allows both of our concerns to be addressed. It sets out what the rights of individuals are. These rights to not allow the majority be "held to ransom". Thus once the charter is adopted the failings of crude majoritarianism are dealt with.

Your next point deals with the case in hand. You present the medical opinion (which if I were in this situation I would accept) you then assert that the religious beliefs are being used as a shield to allow both to die when one might not.
Turn this around to the point of view of a religious person (Which neither of us is). In this way medical opinion is being used as a shield to justify the murder of an innocent when both may live (or die and live again in the arms of GOD)

This is a horrible situation. No outcome will make me cheer.
When the court rules in favour of separation (as it probably will) I doubt you will cheer at the death of an innocent?
After Castor decides to end this tread, after the surgeon has received plaudits for his article in the British Journal of Medicine, after the judges have recovered from their difficult decision (whatever it may be) and moved on to the next case, the family will be left to live their lives in the wake of this tragedy. That may be a family, of four of three, or of two. However many survive they will have to come to terms with what has happened. You and I won't lose any sleep. Therefore, the parents, as the only members of the family capable of making a decision, should, acting in good conscience, be allowed to make the decision, which they believe will best suit their beliefs. It's not perfect, but it's better than a nanny state.



[This message has been edited by C B (edited 15-09-2000).]

Jak

I accept your point that they may truly believe they are acting on God's will.

Yet with some incredulity as to whether this may truly be the case.

If this case results in the death of both children, it will do little to endear me to Religious paths of this kind.

JAK.

C B

Blitz,

I'd like to summarise our arguement, as I see it. Because I believe we have misinterpreted each others posts and not fully expained our own.

i began by arguing that the state must only intervene where it has a mandated right to do so, and that if courts began to set new precedents where would it all stop.

You said that in a democracy we can decide where it stops.

I refuted this by showing that such limits are defined by a constitution (in our case) or precedant (in the U.K.) and then proposed what I believed those limits to be and how they would apply in this case.

You attacked the proposition that other people have a right to their beliefs in two seperate posts and this is why I called you a fascist (not because you disagreed with me).

What you probably meant to say is that you don't accept the right of parents to enforce their beliefs on their children.

this may seem a sensible propostion but it is unworkable. we must allow mentally competant parents to make decisions in the interests of their children as they see fit, i have argued my reasons for this in a number of responses to Jak.

C B

Blitz,

Dictionary.com
a·the·ist (th-st)
n.

One that disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.
fas·cism (fshzm)
n.

Often Fascism
a) A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.
b) Oppressive, dictatorial control

Being an atheist does not preclude you from accepting that other people may have different beliefs, it simply defines your own belief system (or lack thereof)

You seem to have edited dictionary.com's definition of fascism to exclude definition B. I wonder why?

P.S. I too would consider myself an atheist this does not imply that I do not respect other peoples belief systems. I am not that arrogant. I do not believe that I have a monopoly on truth. I do not seek to impose my will on others.

[This message has been edited by C B (edited 15-09-2000).]

Blitzkrieger

wha happened to me post from last Friday

o nm - i don't give a toss if you think I'm a facist - i don't want to get into another slagging match

Shinji

Hi,

I'm a fascist.

I don't believe that people are entitled to kill each other just because they believe it's right. I'm against peoples free choice to murder on the word of a non-existent deity. I don't respect the right of people to decide to let each other die purely on the basis of wacked-out religious beliefs.

When the odd beliefs belong to the minority, as in this case, only a small number of people die, and our bleeding-heart civil libertarians call it free choice. When they belong to the majority, we call it genocide; the holocaust being a recent example.

Why is it that in this situation, we resent state intervention in the upbringing of children; but when it comes to things like problems in schools, drugs, deprivation and the likes, we ask "why isn't the government doing anything?"

Ja,
Rob

C B

Shinji,

You are oversimplifing the situation (to a ridicolous extent) based on your own predudice. The parents in this case believe that seperation would be murder of Mary. Therefore they are using their belief system to choose not to murder rather than as a means of justifing murder.

both religously and medically the seperation of these twins will result in the killing of Mary, the parents therefore have two belief systems backing up their choice. The doctors only have a medical opinion (which has changed yet agin if anybody was watching Channel Four last night).

Here is an interesting question for you. Does the state have the right to kill one individual, who has a poor quality of life, in order to improve the quality of life of another individual? If so can we kill mentally handicapped children to harvest their organs for those in need of transplants.

Shinji

If I am over-simplifying the situation greatly, then you are over exaggerating it.

Let me ask you; do you believe that abortion is right where the life of the mother is certainly threatened by the pregnancy? Do you believe that it is right to kill the unborn child (who would die with the mother anyway) in order to save the life of the mother?

If not, then I fear there is an unresolvable gulf in our belief systems. I am constantly amused at how, on this particular point, the "pro-life" movement are about as anti-life as you can get.

If you can see what I'm getting at here, then surely you can see that the situation in this siamese twin case is no different to the situation in the above abortion scenario. Two people will die. You have the option of saving one of them. Good god man, it doesn't boil down to anything much simpler than that. The primitive and barbaric religious beliefs of the parents don't enter into it.

At the end of the day, children are in the care of their parents; they are not their posessions. If a child is starving, and the parents refuse to feed it, that is neglect and the child should be taken away. If a child is in need of medical attention and the parents refuse to allow it to be given, that is also neglect. I don't give a damn what the parents reasoning is; this isn't a decision of what colour to paint their living room, or what to have for dinner on a friday; this is a childs life we're talking about.

Ja,
Rob

TwoShedsJackson

Originally posted by Shinji:
Two people will die. You have the option of saving one of them. Good god man, it doesn't boil down to anything much simpler than that. The primitive and barbaric religious beliefs of the parents don't enter into it.

At the end of the day, children are in the care of their parents; they are not their posessions. If a child is starving, and the parents refuse to feed it, that is neglect and the child should be taken away. If a child is in need of medical attention and the parents refuse to allow it to be given, that is also neglect. I don't give a damn what the parents reasoning is; this isn't a decision of what colour to paint their living room, or what to have for dinner on a friday; this is a childs life we're talking about.

Well said.

C B

Shinji,

No, there is not an unresolvable gulf in our beliefs systems. But belief systems are the basis of our arguement. You raise the analogy of pro-life versus pro-choice. i would consider myself pro choice. In the case of the abortion, and in this case, the relevant parties should be entitled to the right to chooe the best option based on their belief system.

If continuing a pregnancy endangered the life of a woman should she be forced to have an abortion even though she is willing to take the risk? (pro-choice does not mean abortions for all but rather for those who choose so.)

Now, these children are unable to decide whether or not to take the risk of ignoring medical opinion in favour of religous belief. Their gaurdians have decided to make this choice for them.

as I have said they are not neglecting their children, they are choosing an unortodox measure which may save both children (all be it with a "poor" quality of life)

You have not answered my earlier question, is it acceptable for the state to kill one person in order to improve the quality of anothers life?

You continually ask me questions beginning with "do you think it is right" when the basis of my arguement is that my (or your) opinion should not matter in this difficult choice. We do not have all the answers, our solutions are not perfect, the parents opinion and choice is valid and should be respected.

[This message has been edited by C B (edited 19-09-2000).]

TwoShedsJackson

Originally posted by C B:
as I have said they are not neglecting their children, they are choosing an unortodox measure which may save both children (all be it with a "poor" quality of life)

Err how does letting them both die save both children exactly?

C B

Originally posted by Castor Troy:
Err how does letting them both die save both children exactly?

both may not die. medical opinion is not always correct

News Flash HUMANS MAKE MISTAKES

C B

If you were watching Channel four on Sunday night you would have heard the testimony of one of the madics admitting that the children could live for many years.

C B

Originally posted by Castor Troy:


Seperate them, give one a chance - otherwise they both die, or survive as a grossly deformed medical curiosity for however long.

I have been repeatedly accused in this discussion of condoning neglect and double murder. Perhaps if you reread your post you might realise that you are condoning neglect and murder. Again, does the state have the right to kill those it judges to have a poor quality of life?

I feel at this point I have to reiterate my earlier disclaimer that I do not agree with the parents choice but rather their right to make it. I have been forced to argue their point of view and because I don't fully agree with it I have perhaps failed.

i do belive however that the parents are acting in good faith and that nobody has a greater competance to make this difficult decision. the state should not intervene in situations where it does not have a competance.

C B

Should people be forced to follow medical advice if they choose not to?

C B

Originally posted by Blitzkrieger:
We're not talking about quality of life, we're talking about life. They're not killing Mary so that the other twin can walk without a limp - they're killing her so that she can live.

Not true, the medics involved have accepted the possibility that the conjoined twins could live for many years (though in a manner I wouldn't wish on anybody)

So the question is one of quality of life.

if this expanation is unstisfactory then lets return to my extreme example. Is it O.K. for the state to kill a mentally handicapped child to use the organs to save an otherwise healthy child?

In this case an individual with a poor quality of life is being killed to save the life of another. Does this then pass your litmus test.

Also I again ask anybody to put forward alternative rules which can be used to govern state intervention or does the majority have the right to do as it pleases to minorities?

Jak

Ok so .. the question you say is does the state have the right to intervene?

Would it be ok to let them both die for fun?

Lets just say the parents thought it'd be interesting to see how long they could live?
And they took bets on it. And showcased them around the country until one or both died.

Would it be acceptable for them to do so? Or should the state intervene in that case?

Give me a yes/no answer on the above scenario. If the issue is - as you point out so often - when does the state have the right to intervene, this should be easy.

C B

Jak,

Yes the state should intervene in this case.

I refer you to my two rules to guide state intervention. In your scenario the parents are not acting in the interests of the child. In the case of the twins the parents objection is more thoughtful and objective.

TwoShedsJackson

Originally posted by C B:
In the case of the twins the parents objection is more thoughtful and objective.

ummm no. They are objecting to an operation which may prolong the life of one of the children due to the theory and teaching of the Church of a deity no-one has any proof exsists.

I don't call that thoughtful and objective.

Jak

If then on the grounds of culture or religion ...

Lets say that -

In one of the old books, a pair of Siamese had been born and the lord did look angrily upon the abomination and deem it to be the work of the devil. And the lord said unto some madman "Let all such children be paraded to the world until dead so that all may marvel at the power of the lord as he triumphs over the work of satan"

Now lets say some modern family still practice this religion and believe that their children are in fact the work of satan and must be paraded until death.

We now have 2 cases.

1 - Sadisitic family parading twins till death on the grounds of being bad people.

2 - Upstanding minority performing the work of the Lord.

Of course we would not want to oppress the minority now so the state cannot intervene in case two as you believe it should in case one.

I believe this case should be judged on the actions of the parents rather than their motives.

JAK.

C B

Originally posted by Castor Troy:

ummm no. They are objecting to an operation which may prolong the life of one of the children due to the theory and teaching of the Church of a deity no-one has any proof exsists.

I don't call that thoughtful and objective.

These people have a belief system which you disagree with. It does not mean they are not thoughtful and objective.

All belief systems are based on some degree of faith. This is self evident because we are not omnicient.

C B

Jak,

i have to admit that this is a difficult one for me to answer. For the last number of weeks I have defended a right of people to practice a religion I abhor, perhaps I'm just getting tired.

One thing I can say is that your "religon" does not exist. Your earlier posts which argued against a vigilant constitution seemed to put forward the point that we should not pay to much attention to unlikely extremes.

As your "scripture" does not exist it is an impossible extreme. (at least for the purposes of your arguement)

But as I have argued that we should be wary of such extremes you'll have to give me a little bit more time to think this one through.

[This message has been edited by C B (edited 19-09-2000).]

Blitzkrieger

Originally posted by C B:
if this expanation is unstisfactory then lets return to my extreme example. Is it O.K. for the state to kill a mentally handicapped child to use the organs to save an otherwise healthy child?

Again we're not talking about quality of life. It's not a case where Mary would live and have a poor quality of life. I wouldn't touch that with a 10ft pole.

I realise that I'm putting a lot of faith in the doctors abilities but I'm sure we're talking about a number of highly trained, experienced physicians. Maybe they would both live but medical advice, a lot of medical advice is to seperate them.

C B

Originally posted by Blitzkrieger:
Again we're not talking about quality of life. It's not a case where Mary would live and have a poor quality of life.

unfortunately we are. the medics have acknowledged that the children may live conjoined in a horrific manner for many years.

You also base your arguement on medical opinion (which i also trust). Again I ask, can we force somebody to accept medical opinion if they choose against it?

[This message has been edited by C B (edited 19-09-2000).]

C B

Jak,

As I have already said your last post has troubled me. It puts forward an extreme if valid propostion which calls in to question the applicability of the rules I say should guide government intervention in socail affairs.

In order to come to terms with this I have had to take a serious and considered look at my earlier post which set out these rules.

These were as follows:

Originally posted by C B:

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.

In that earlier post I claimed that the parents in the Siamese Twins case did not break these rules and so there wishes should be respected.

At first glance it appears that the same is true of your extreme scenario, but this is not the case. In your scenario the parents are acting in the best interests of their beliefs not using their beliefs to act in the best interests of the child.

this may seem an incredibly pedantic point regarding useless sementics but then most law is.

Jak

Originally posted by C B:
At first glance it appears that the same is true of your extreme scenario, but this is not the case. In your scenario the parents are acting in the best interests of their beliefs not using their beliefs to act in the best interests of the child.

this may seem an incredibly pedantic point regarding useless sementics but then most law is.

Now now Conor .. I'll tell you what the couple in my example are doing. They are expelling the curse of Sutan from their adjoined offspring as they Know that this will result in the souls of their children leaving the form which Sutan had twisted and rising up into the arms of Jebus.

What right has the state to intrude on their noble practice? Should not religion be a shield behind which one may live as one pleases? What is the value of a corporeal existence in comparison to the eternal love of Jebus?

JAK.

As i say - judge this on their actions not their beliefs.

Jebus

Amen.

An Agreeable Other Person

I fully support whatever C B says he's the best

C B

Originally posted by Jak:

As i say - judge this on their actions not their beliefs.

Who exactly is the judge and on what belief system should they judge?

The Law.

I seem to be the only person who has sofar put forward what this law should be.

So yet again I am forced to repeat a question.
If my rules are wrong what are the alternatives?