Siamese Twins

Shinji

This is not a legal debate, it is a moral one.

It is quite simple at heart, as all such debates are. We merely pile on complexities because that's what humans do, sadly.

The morals are simple and universal...

1) Murder is wrong.
2) Allowing someone to die, whom you could have saved, is wrong.

I firmly believe that all right-thinking people subscribe to these morals.

Now what you have here is a slightly more complex case, in which these morals seem to contradict each other. Two people will almost certainly die, and in order to save one of them, the other (who has a much tinier chance of surviving) must be killed prematurely.

It's a tricky situation in ways, but I think that from a purely logical and moral point of view, we can all see that the operation to seperate the two must go ahead.

We introduce a layer of human complexity with the whole issue of the parents choice, and religion. This complexity REALLY needs to be ignored if basic justice is to be given to these kids.

C B, you said some time ago that in my abortion scenario, you were pro-choice, saying that the mother should be allowed to decide whether she wanted an abortion - thus saving her own life - or if she wanted to die with her unborn child, effectively. Do you REALLY think that a traumatised woman with a child growing inside her that will eventually kill her is in a position to take that decision? Do you really think that institutionalised suicide through a choice of inaction is permissable?

Paladin

This is a terribly interesting debate.
Ill throw my 2p's worth in.

Originally posted by Shinji:
This is not a legal debate, it is a moral one

Yes this is a moral debate, but the actual decision is a legal one, although in a way most laws are originally based on morals.

Originally posted by C.B.:
the medics involved have accepted the possibility that the conjoined twins could live for many years

This is a might.
They will probably die within a year from what Ive read. To use "might" they are admitting they dont know the future. I "might" become the president. Odds are against me though.

OK. Enough picking holes.

My opinion:

I dont have a fúcking clue. Well I do, but I accept that both C.B and others are making perfectly valid arguments.

"Others" are saying that one twin should be saved because they will both "probably" die otherwise (although life is a fickle thing - we are all going to die anyway).

C.B says: I believe it would be right to save one here too, but in other possible similiar cases that that decision might not be so easy. Therefore, perhaps it would be a dangerous precedent to set, that the state intervenes?

Am I right here basically?

I know that if they kill one, that decision is already made because one is weaker and has no organs, but if both were equally strong then what then? Toss a coin was suggested at the start of this debate. If the state didnt know who to kill/save, then could they intervene?

Ya know what? I just dont know, and nobody here has convinced me one way or the other, and I dont think they can.

One thing I can say:

Its a good sign of human morality that this is debated so much. If a decision was made and left at that I would question if anybody had a heart. I respect the decency of everyone who has made a reasonable post here.

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

TwoShedsJackson

Originally posted by C B:
News Flash HUMANS MAKE MISTAKES

Yes, very clever C B. Might live, might die, they really don't fu<king know, do they? As for 'poor' quality of life, try no quality whatsoever. Have you seen the drawing of them that has been in the paper? No-one should be forced to live like that.

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

Blitzkrieger

Originally posted by C B:
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?

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.

Blitzkrieger

Originally posted by An Agreeable Other Person:
I fully support whatever C B says he's the best

eh?


I should prolly leave it alone after that last post but one last thing:

The doctors will of course say that the twins might live for many years. They're not infalible so there will always be doubt. Medical advice, which I'm sure is the result of several well-trained, experienced doctors consulting on the case is to seperate them.

C B

Originally posted by Blitzkrieger:
eh?

It was a personal joke between me, Jak and "JEBUS"

Originally posted by Blitzkrieger:

Medical advice, which I'm sure is the result of several well-trained, experienced doctors consulting on the case is to seperate them.

There is also medical advice to the contrary.

Paladin,
I think you have summed up most of my points except that my main objection to state intervention is that the case is too complex for the state to decide and that the parents wishes should be respected.

TwoShedsJackson

Originally posted by C B:
My point is simple, the states belief system is no more perfect than the parents therefore it should not attempt to override the parents decision.

Do you consider the state's system more imperfect than the parent's? If not why is the parent's system more valid?

The state's system - laws - are based on a general moral structure and what is considered right/wrong by the majority of people in society. On the other hand the parent's system is entirely based on the worship of an alleged Deity for whomn there is no basis in rational thought.

To my mind that makes the state's system more applicable in this case. However I must reiterate my original stance on this which is that as a beleiver in freedom of choice I think the parents should be allowed murder both children if that is their wish.

The state should not be allowed force anyone to have an operation performed on them or their children against their will - what they need to do is try and convince the parents how irrational they are being. If the parents are devout Catholics, that means they have no chance whatsoever.

The parents are prepared to sacrafice their children to curry favour with 'God' and that is their decision to make. I would not wish the weight of the guilt they will feel for the rest of their lives on my worst enemy.

C B

Originally posted by Castor Troy:


The state should not be allowed force anyone to have an operation performed on them or their children against their will - what they need to do is try and convince the parents how irrational they are being. If the parents are devout Catholics, that means they have no chance whatsoever.

This is quite close to my point so why the hell are you arguing with me?

But the parents are not murdering their children or attempting to curry favour with God.

[This message has been edited by C B (edited 20-09-2000).]

TwoShedsJackson

Not arguing, discussing. are you haunting this board constantly btw - i have an excuse as the moderator

C B

Originally posted by Castor Troy:
Not arguing, discussing. are you haunting this board constantly btw - i have an excuse as the moderator

Pretty much (just the humanities and homour board)
I'm a bored student with nothing better to do (except write a thesis thats due for Friday, or go home to my girlfriend)
**** what the hell am I posting here for?

C B

Originally posted by Shinji:
This is not a legal debate, it is a moral one.

Neither option available is morally neutral.

And anyway the debate has been taken away from the moral realm and been brought into the courts by the doctors.

The judges will have to make reference to law not morals in their judgement.

Judges are gaurdians of law not moral gaurdians. This is unequivically a good thing. I personnally don't want a set of arrogant moral gaurdians (dressed in bizarre attire) moralising my personal decisions. If I wanted that I'd go to Mass.

You also seem to set yourself up a some sort of moral authority granting yourself the right to override the choice of a pregnant woman. How bloody arrogant can you get?

You may have valid points (I think you do) but you do not have the right to force them on those who disagree.

It is tragic that some flawed belief system will decide the fate of these innocent twins. But is reality. All that is left to decide is which flawed system should be used. My point is simple, the states belief system is no more perfect than the parents therefore it should not attempt to override the parents decision.

All outcomes will be unpallitable.

[This message has been edited by C B (edited 20-09-2000).]

Blitzkrieger

I knew I should have left it

There's medical opinion to the contrary but the vast majority of medical advice is to seperate them.

TwoShedsJackson

Well the parents have decided to end their challenge, and the op will apparently go ahead next month.

Still have to laff when I see the ProLife campaign up in arms because one of the children may now have some prospect of life - makes sense.

_CreeD_

Firstly, I haven't read this entire thread, I haven't the time right now, just this page.
So, apologies for my ignorance.

But, the first thing that struck me was that anyone here would even try to contemplate this situation. It's fine to have an oppinion, but there is no way you can talk in the (At least theorectical) absolutes that most of you have been.
To think about this and what I would do in that situation horrifies me.

Also, "Flawed Belief Systems" and "Wacky religion's" been thrown around a lot. As I think was said, the parent's justification is not important, so long as they are acting in what they genuinely believe to be the best interest of the children. Personally I think all organised religions are whacky, no offense, but from an atheist point of view any actions done in the name of a mythical spirit are at least a little suspect, whether it be God,Kali or the tooth fairy...and please take those metaphors in the humour they're intended.
That doesn't mean I will judge their actions by their beliefs, but by the intentions and outcome of those actions in their own right.

While most seem to think the obvious answer is to be coldly logical and save the most likely survivor, and that the parents were completely in the wrong, add one more thing to the equation and think it over again - Imagine you're the one holding the scalpel.....

Not so easy a choice anymore, for me anyway.



[This message has been edited by _CreeD_ (edited 30-09-2000).]

DeVore

The parents (had they insisted on their idiotic stance) should have been dropped down a well.

They do NOT have the right to decide what happens to ANY other human except themselves.

We have religions that say "beat your kids, it'll do them good!" ("spare the rod etc") yet the state will punish parents who follow this lead (use of an implement makes it Assault or possibly GBH.)

Religious beliefs do NOT contradict the rights of a separate human no matter how young. Those rights are enshrined in law.

How they decide between the rights of the two (?) human babies in this case I dont know but I know one thing, its got bugger all to do with the desires of the parents.

DeV.

TwoShedsJackson

Originally posted by _CreeD_:
While most seem to think the obvious answer is to be coldly logical and save the most likely survivor, and that the parents were completely in the wrong, add one more thing to the equation and think it over again - Imagine you're the one holding the scalpel.....

Not so easy a choice anymore, for me anyway.

[This message has been edited by _CreeD_ (edited 30-09-2000).]

If I was holding the scalpel I would still carry out the op to save one life, as opposed to putting it down and killing two.

_CreeD_

Yup, it's what I'd like to hope I could do too.

My point was to stop 'picking' on the parents so much, and instead of being just logical, actually try and look at the fact that they had to choose for one of their children to die - for one to live, yes, but still, it's a choice of nightmares.


And I agree that human beings should not be able to make a choice that is detrimental to the life of another. But the same point applies to the Law. Why do you seem so sure that the parent's should not make the choice, when all you're doing is handing it to someone else. Not this big perfect 'thing' called the law, but just another group of humans.
Who are you, or I, to say who has more right to make a choice when the ones involved are incapable of making it themselves?

Now, to be clear, I would go with separation. I'm just trying to make the point, that my oppinion is moot, since it is not MY right to make that choice for them, as wrong as I think the alternative ultimately is.

It all comes down to who has the moral right to make this choice. To me, that is the people who will be influenced most by it's outcome. Since they can't talk, it has to be the next closest, which is their parents.
If it was a case where both could be saved, then I would let the law save both of them against the parental wishes, but either way we are talking about death - the probable death of 2, or the definite death of one. The law of the land does not apply as it is contravened ,in spirit at least, in either case. It's a question of moral law, and that is in the hands of the parents - again, whether you or I agree with them.

BossArky

Save as much as possible.

Canaboid

Anyone see that Simpsons where Bart had a Siamese twin and they kept him chained in the attic and fed him fish heads ?


I'll just get my coat.

pepperkin

To drop my opinions again...
In a case recently, they had a very similar situation....kill one twin, or kill both. So they did the surgery.
The weaker twin died immediately, of course admist tears and weeping. The stronger twin lived for another 6 months, and then ALSO died. Might this be a factor in the parents decision, as well? I can't say yay or nay, as I don't know the parents, but I know it would cross my mind!
As for the "Quality of Life" of being a Siamese Twin...if we are allowed to judge whether to kill a child based on their "Quality Of Life" then Thalidomide babies would be dead. Downs syndrome would be dead. Some might consider deafness to be an infringement and kill them off too. It would add up to mass hysteria. Who are we, as thinking, "normal", (in a physical sense, some more so than others...), rational people to assume WHAT gives life "quality?"
Is it sentience? Freedom of full movement? Possessing all the normal range of senses? Or is it just life itself?
I've seen interview and shows with Siamese Twins who HATED it, hated being stuck to someone else, and were unhappy with the whole situation. And adversely, interviews with others where the due loved their life, and wouldn't have it any other way, no matter what choices given.
One thing I was kinda considering. In the case of the parents, everyone is up in arms assuming their choices are based on religion. They very well might be, I don't know...but on the other hand, I can consider other scenarios.
What if they are following the "If you can't do anything truly good, then at least do no harm" credo. That would fall into it...they can't do the great good they long for, saving both children, so they are trying not to do any harm. Parents walk a fine line between what constitutes "correct" in raising a child and what ends up being simply POSSIBLE.
As I stated before, I don't agree with their decision, I would go with the surgery. I would do this not because of religion or what my neighbors would say, but because I believe in the medical field. Maybe a times, a bit too much. On the same token, however, I wouldn't have the surgery until it became truly neccessary, I would keep both children together as long as possible, and with me as long as possible, due to the risks involved either way. But thats just me.
I still feel that they are not neglecting or abusing their children with their original choice not to have the surgery. Sometimes, I also believe it truly is best to let nature do it's course. And as parents, it isn't a case of murder or religion, it's their children. I can understand how they would not want to take actions they know will kill one child. Many times with very terminally sick children, the parents are advised to take the kids home and keep them comfortable until the end...does this also consitute as abuse or neglect?
They have the right to choose the medical procedures their children undertake until said children are of an age to do so themselves. Thats what makes parents PARENTS, is that responsibility to weigh both sides of an issue and to make the best choice they can, and NO parent will ever have people agree with them all the time.