 sj |
||
|
||
BS: NON-MUSIC: Conjoined Twins Dilemna
|
|
|
Subject: NON-MUSIC: Conjoined Twins Dilemna From: Mrrzy Date: 26 Sep 00 - 10:32 AM Just curious, we have a lot of British here, as well as a lot of parents of twins... what is everyone's take on this one? I refer of course to the set of conjoined twins whose parents are religiously opposed to "separation" surgery which would "kill" "one" "twin" to allow the possibility of the survival of the "other" (I put everything in quotes because even these terms are debatable). No nastiness, please, and if anyone can drift this into a musical area, that would be great, but I did put NONMUSIC in the title so that people who don't want to read anything that isn't already musical can skip this one. FASCINATING medico-ethico-legal situation! And those poor parents - my heart is really with them, here. My personal take is that the parents' wishes should be paramount, and I would think that, I think, even if their religious beliefs weren't part of the equation. What do y'all think, and are you British or not, and do you think that affected your take? I'm American but grew up African. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-MUSIC: Conjoined Twins Dilemna From: wysiwyg Date: 26 Sep 00 - 10:45 AM I want to post here right away in hopes the later posters will read what I have said. First, I was a twin, and the twinning happened so late that conjoint twinning could easily have occurred. As the pregnancy continued, one body only survived. But we started out as one spirit. And it remains very complicated, the results of that, and some of you know me well enough now that we talk about it. But... the rest of you, I don't know that well. And that brings me to my point. If no one who has not experienced my situation can understand me, even close friends, how can any of you hope to understand the situation in question in this thread? And what use is it to have opinions? And what is the purpose of debating what none of us can influence, or should influence, if we could? I would ask instead that people just pray for the situation, without judging any aspect of it. Because the spirit or spirits of the being or beings in question is more important, more interesting, and more in need of something, whatever the outcome. And I would ask that there be some awareness that this particular subject is a hard one for me and to remember when you post here, I am here too. This is a tough time of year for me, and I am balancing as much as I can and more than I should. Just remember, your Mudsister is here too, and that it is hard to be here at all. ~S~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-MUSIC: Conjoined Twins Dilemna From: Dave (the ancient mariner) Date: 26 Sep 00 - 11:31 AM Praise/Mudsister We are grateful you are here, and your life is a precious gift upon the earth, we are all blessed by it. I would watch one die to give life to the other rather than lose both. Often we can save one life, and painfully have to watch another die because we were forced to choose. My understanding is that unless the surgery is done both will surely die. The parents (whom I grieve for deeply) must be allowed to decide the best course of action. All must live with, and respect their choice. Increasingly we seem to be faced with this kind of medical dilemma more and more. We do not have the Wisdom Of Solomon, neither do we progress in wisdom as fast as we progress in technology. To watch both die is as much a sin as it is for the doctors not to operate. Who else may make the call but the parents? None of us has the moral right or ability to judge the right course of action; but they must live with their conscience and consequence. Qui tollis peccata mundi donna eis requiem. Nature can be a very cruel teacher. Yours, Aye. Dave |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-MUSIC: Conjoined Twins Dilemna From: Mrrzy Date: 26 Sep 00 - 12:50 PM Praise, I would never knowlingly or willingly hurt you individually. Nonetheless, there is much to be said about debating what you think you cannot change, because in such a debate, things do change - like minds - and those changes can easily percolate downstream to affect later decisions. I personally feel it is a lot more useless to pray than to talk about this, but would never dream of telling you not to. And Dave(TAM) - wisdom of Solomon indeed, how à propos. And I repeat - those poor, poor parents. I do not mean to be callous, but this is only the tip of the iceberg; the more thought goes into it NOW, the less fallout we will all have to deal with later. If it's OK to kill one to save the other, is it OK to kill a mom to save a fetus? How about killing someone for their organs? Slippery slope... and prayer doesn't have nearly the braking power that discussion does... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-MUSIC: Conjoined Twins Dilemna From: mousethief Date: 26 Sep 00 - 12:54 PM Mrrzy, I have to respectfully disagree with your estimation of the efficacy of prayer, even as I agree with you on the importance of conversation. Here is something I haven't heard anybody else mention in relation to this very painful and difficult topic: how would you like to be the surviving twin, and be told later in life (hopefully before you discover it in the newspaper clippings for yourself!) that your sister was killed in order to save your life? How would you feel? I agree with everyone who expresses sympathy for the parents. What a horrible thing to have to face. Lord, have mercy!
Alex |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-MUSIC: Conjoined Twins Dilemna From: wysiwyg Date: 26 Sep 00 - 01:06 PM Mrzzy, I didn't tell you to do or not do anything. I asked questions. When I ask questions I mean them. They aren't rhetorical nor were they a rant. ~S~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-MUSIC: Conjoined Twins Dilemna From: catspaw49 Date: 26 Sep 00 - 01:31 PM When I read this post earlier, I clicked off immediately and its bothered me ever since. All posters have made good points. I don't know how I would react or what I would do. The only safe thing I can say is that regardless of what decsion we made, no amount of rationalization would ever sell me that it was the "right" decision. We've come close to a situation requiring this type of decision in the past but the choices were taken away before we had to make it. Even now, I don't know whether or not that was a blessing or a curse. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-MUSIC: Conjoined Twins Dilemna From: SINSULL Date: 26 Sep 00 - 01:47 PM Mrzzy, I am an atheist but still pray. Many minds working towards a similar goal can accomplish what believers call miracles. I see it as simply using another power of the mind. And I know that the sympathetic joining of minds will bring some relief, some sense of calm to those parents. I can not know what I would do in similar circumstances. I do know that the decision morally and legally should be mine as parent of the children. The doctors' decision is colored by a "need to try the untried". Politicians are hardly capable of making moral decisions for themselves nevermind me and my children. I have a friend with identical twin daughters. At 16, one underwent elective surgery which went wrong. She was left comatose and when she finally came back after months in a coma, she had to be taught to speak, write, read, everything. She is seriously brain damaged and confined to a wheel chair. She requires 24 hour care. Every day she has to deal with the anger of looking at her sister and knowing what could have been. Every day her sister looks at her with the guilt of what is. Life can be very cruel at times. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-MUSIC: Conjoined Twins Dilemna From: Midchuck Date: 26 Sep 00 - 01:54 PM I must be callous, because I don't see the dillema. As I understand the facts, if you cut, one dies; if you don't cut, both die. So the obvious action is the one that will save one. But maybe I don't understand the facts correctly, because a lot of others seem to have a problem with this. Explain, please. Peter. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-MUSIC: Conjoined Twins Dilemna From: DougR Date: 26 Sep 00 - 02:06 PM It is a difficult medical ethical question and I really feel for the Judge that made the decision to allow the operation. I also feel very sorry for the parents who, apparently, are willing to allow both children to die rather than possibly being able to save one of them. I think the Judge made the right decison though. If there is a chance the one can be saved, they should do it. I wonder, does the "pro-choice" vs "Pro-life" issue enter into this question? I would think that anyone who is pro-life would reach the same conclusion as the Judge. Am I wrong? Just wonder. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-MUSIC: Conjoined Twins Dilemna From: paddymac Date: 26 Sep 00 - 02:20 PM What is most amazing to me is to recognize that we live in a time when the dilemna considered here can actually be discussed rationally. In earlier times, such a dilemna rarely arose because the birth process usually failed for mechanical reasons, killing both the mother and the conjoined offspring. My understanding is that such births today are mostly, if not always, by C-section. That gets to the question I ask. If the collective "we" has intervened already, how do we decide whether to intervene again? Presumptively, the mother survives because of the first intervention, and can perhaps produce additional children. Is the severing of the conjoined twins actually an enlightened moral decision, or is it more in the nature of cleaning up an earlier mistake? I like to think that I know what I would do if faced with such a dilemna, but the fact is, neither i nor anybody else can really know unless or until faced with the decision. My only certainty is that only the parents can make that choice, and the collective "we", in the person of the state, has absolutely no right to intervene, other than to protect the parents from the barrage of interests who want to make the decision for them. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-MUSIC: Conjoined Twins Dilemna From: Dave (the ancient mariner) Date: 26 Sep 00 - 02:33 PM Paddymac. I agree with you wholeheartedly on this one. Protect the parents, and the poor bloody doctors, who must (as human beings) agonise over their ability to intervene and save a life; and at the same time break their code and harm one in the process. God grant us wisdom, and guide us to do the right thing in all choices now, and in the future. Yours, Aye. Dave |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-MUSIC: Conjoined Twins Dilemna From: GUEST,Greyes Date: 26 Sep 00 - 02:51 PM I am a Brit, and also have a background in ethical philosophy. The pitfalls here are numerous. Do you consider the quality of life of the surviving twin? Do you consider that the parents may be emotionally destroyed if the operation goes ahead? Decisions like this are part of the responsibilities of parenthood, although most never have to make them. Medical ethics is a specialist area and a doctor's priority is preserving life. This is not always in the best interests of either the patients or those responsible for them. The parents should decide, and whatever our own beliefs we must all hope that their faith supports them through these dark days. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-MUSIC: Conjoined Twins Dilemna From: DougR Date: 26 Sep 00 - 04:34 PM But haven't the courts taken it out of the parent's hands? It is my understanding that the parents do not want the doctors to operate, but the court is saying that it is not up to the parents to decide. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-MUSIC: Conjoined Twins Dilemna From: RichM Date: 26 Sep 00 - 04:51 PM In this case, the dilemma is this: Either one child will survive, by sacrificing the other; Or both will die. As a parent, I know what I would do. I would save one child. However, I think it should not be decided by a parent.A parent should not have the right to decide if a child- or both- lives or dies. A parent should have no more rights in this regard, than any other citizen has. Society should decide, so let the courts make the choice. Rich McCarthy |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-MUSIC: Conjoined Twins Dilemna From: GUEST,Greyeyes Date: 26 Sep 00 - 05:00 PM The courts have decided, but an appeals process is still underway. I also know what I would have decided, to have the foetuses aborted, an option as strict catholics these parents were not prepared to countenance. The condition of the twins was known very early in pregnancy. There are other circumstances when I would not leave such a decision to parents. Christian scientists refusing treatment for sick children for instance, but weighing up all sides in this case, I would let the parents decide. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-MUSIC: Conjoined Twins Dilemna From: John Hardly Date: 26 Sep 00 - 05:03 PM Rich McCarthy, Can society make a more loving decision than the parents? (Granted "normal" parents) John |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-MUSIC: Conjoined Twins Dilemna From: SINSULL Date: 26 Sep 00 - 05:04 PM The parents, practising Catholics, chose to let nature take its course and left the matter in God's hands. They viewed the operation as the murder of a child. Does the end justify the means? Glad it's not my decision. Unfortunately, the message to parents of seriously ill children is "Don't go to the doctors for help unless you are willing to give up your rights to the medical profession and the courts." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-MUSIC: Conjoined Twins Dilemna From: Linda Kelly Date: 26 Sep 00 - 05:32 PM Very difficult choice and very difficult to have been following it in our courts . I feel that the right choice to separate has been made, but I do empathise with the parents since the surviving girl will be beset with many problems. I do think though that the decision is not so much a condemnation of one of the little girls to death since this was always the inevitable result for her,but the opportunity to allow the strongest to live. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-MUSIC: Conjoined Twins Dilemna From: oggie Date: 26 Sep 00 - 06:34 PM There is a further complicating factor here. The parents came to the UK because medical facilities were better here than in their own country - the mother's life has been saved where, as was pointed out, in some countries she would have died in childbirth. There is no easy ethical answer and it can be argued either way, I would take the line that having decided to use UK medical facilities, as a conscious decision, then you cannot pick and chose the parts you like. The legal implications are equally far reaching, if the Doctors let both children die they are open to possible prosecution or claim for damages, the same if they 'kill' one of them. This is why, within the English legal system, it has to go to the courts and a legal decision made. As more conditions become survivable and the definitions of 'life' and 'death' become more precise I fear that the courts will have to make ever more rulings of this nature. I am glad that it is not my decision to make. Steve |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-MUSIC: Conjoined Twins Dilemna From: sophocleese Date: 26 Sep 00 - 06:40 PM Strange how language enters into it; is it killing one so the other can live or is it rescuing one of them from death? The answers will depend upon the question although the action may the same in each instance. Society can make some decisions instead of parents but is, usually, reluctant as all hell to do so and some children are harmed by this reluctance. The act of becoming a parent does not immediately confer the ability to be a good parent. Although I have sympathy with the let-nature-take-its-course approach. It often seems to be invoked when the weakest, most powerless members of society are in danger. Not just children but those who are both poor and elderly. Do we deny a child the chance to live because nature seems to be set on killing it while at the same time debating the merits of this decision through the unnatural medium of computer technology? Does the pope make use of unnatural technology and medical expertise in order to extend his life? Just a few questions I have in this tangle. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-MUSIC: Conjoined Twins Dilemna From: DougR Date: 26 Sep 00 - 08:01 PM I think a few of you who believe strongly in the parent's right to choose rather than the courts are not considering the fact that the court over rules parent's wishes frequently. Example: if a child is abused by a parent or both parents, the child is taken away from the abusive environment and placed into a safer one. I believe the court had a right to act, but I would not have wanted to be the Judge that had to make the decision. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-MUSIC: Conjoined Twins Dilemna From: Gary T Date: 26 Sep 00 - 08:36 PM Though I have a general awareness of this case, I have not followed it closely in the news accounts. Much of what I know I have learned in this thread. An interpretation that comes to mind is that the parents are willing to accept medical procedures that save or better life (e.g. C-section), but absolutely none that can be construed as taking life (abortion, the operation in question here). They are further willing to accept loss of life to natural causes, though not gladly I assume. In sum, they will forego authorizing anything which will actively cause a death, even if the likely (or certain?) result is other deaths. While I venture that many or most of us do not share this approach, there is a certain consistency to it. It does raise the question in my mind, if I have accurately grasped their point of view, would they then have refused to assassinate Hitler even though that action may have saved millions of lives? Interesting, and tragic, food for thought. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-MUSIC: Conjoined Twins Dilemna From: GUEST,Petr Date: 26 Sep 00 - 09:19 PM There are two questions here. Do parents have the right to decide. And what is the decision (to allow one to live, while the other dies) OR Do nothing and allow both to die.) With respect to the parents choice. If the decision is to let nature take its course, we would be allowing people to die from easily treatable causes. Furthermore, we would not be in this state of affairs as the twins would not have survived thus far (I would think think they were born by c-section). There is also the question of the quality of life of the surviving twin. I would choose to save one. This brings to mind similar dilemnas such as Huntingdons disease which is incurable and always follows a definite pattern as the body gradually shuts down. Recently a test became available, that would show one if has Huntingdons. The onset usually is not until one is in their 40's. So people can usually have a very healthy life until it starts to appear. Of course people who had Huntingdons in the family can choose to test the fetus during the pregnancy and terminate if they desire. Now Woody Guthrie died from Huntingdons and we certainly wouldnt have his legacy or Arlo's for that matter if Woodys parents had that option available. Arlo Guthrie (I believe) chose not to take the test when it became available and since symptoms have not appeared it is unlikely he has Huntingdons. Petr.
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-MUSIC: Conjoined Twins Dilemna From: Mrrzy Date: 27 Sep 00 - 11:35 AM Petr, I think you're right about Arlo. DaveR, where you say "I wonder, does the "pro-choice" vs "Pro-life" issue enter into this question? I would think that anyone who is pro-life would reach the same conclusion as the Judge. Am I wrong? Just wonder." - my (admittedly poor) understanding of the prolife position is that you can't kill a baby (not to get into killing doctors, or this poor judge), so they would say, I think, that the operation should be disallowed, since the less-developped twin has her right to life... And I echo the fear on behalf of other problematical children, whose parents may avoid getting medical advice out of fear that the courts will then take over... We here in the US are having HMO nightmares (those of you who don't know what that's about, COUNT YOUR BLESSINGS), where the government and insurance industry are spending a lot of time sticking their noses between patient and practitioner... (hope that visual isn't too graphic), and this seems to be yet another case. The parents wanted the best MEDICAL treatment, which didn't mean that they wanted any different LEGAL treatment. I doubt that it ever occurred to them that their wishes would be overruled. I think they just wanted to give their children, plural, the best chance at life, which they now have - having been born at a superb hospital which took good care of the Mom. The parents' take seems to be that they (the children, both of them) were born with a (singular - the conjoining itself) life-threatening condition which cannot be resolved (in the plural) by surgery. While I may personally disagree with that take, I defend the parents' right to it BECAUSE IT IS BASED ON RELIGION. The earlier example of child abuse allowing the courts to step in doesn't hold; a Christian Scientist DOES have the ABSOLUTE right to refuse life-saving, simple surgery like an appendectomy on behalf of their child's soul. While I may find that position reprehensible, I defend the right to have it. And most of you already know MY take on religion in general... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-MUSIC: Conjoined Twins Dilemna From: Naemanson Date: 27 Sep 00 - 12:12 PM I have an opinion but I want to ask some questions first. I realize some of these have been touched on in the posts above but I would like to get clear answers before I make a fool of myself. How did this end up in court? Who was the interested party who insisted that the twins be separated? My understanding is that the parents are objecting to the operation on religious grounds. Is this true? Are they objecting to medical treatment in general or only to a treatment that will end in death? What is the expected life span of the twins if not separated? How much longer will the single child be expected to live? What would be the quality of life in both instances? There was a reference above to protecting the doctors. Does this enter into this decision? Thanks, Brett |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-MUSIC: Conjoined Twins Dilemna From: Penny S. Date: 27 Sep 00 - 01:31 PM I feel torn by this debate. On the parent's rights, I found that because I had just been reading about the set up of Roman family life while studying Saint Augusting, it seemed that in allowing the parents to choose death for both, we were harking back to the rights of the paterfamilias. In most situations, we would not expect those rights to be defended in modern courts. Should the parents deeply held religious beliefs, in all cases, have priority over what might be seen as the human rights of the child? Where I live, members of the Exclusive Brithren have withdrawn their children from school, because they wish to bring up their children in their beliefs. These include the inferiority of women, and their only life option being to marry and carry seven children, in complete obedience to their husband. Do parents have these rights? It is a very difficult argument, and the twins' case is an extreme version of it. I would not want to see the state over-ride parents' views, since this could lead to situations like the abduction of Australian aboriginal children. But the children have not only rights to life, but rights to a life, with full freedom of choice. In this case, I would come down on the choice of saving one life. But how could it be explained to Jodie later? I am glad it isn't my choice. Penny |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-MUSIC: Conjoined Twins Dilemna From: GUEST,Greyeyes Date: 27 Sep 00 - 02:03 PM The matter was referred to the courts because the doctors wanted to operate to save one baby, but the parents refused permission. In such circumstances The state's Social Services would be called in to protect the interests of the children, and ultimately the matter would be referred to the courts for a legal ruling. I don't think anyone knows how long the single child will live, or what her quality of life will be, these are imponderables. The life expectancy of the twins if not separated is imprecise, but I think not more than a few months, probably less. Protecting the doctors does not come in to it from a litigation point of view. The parents religion is clear that life is sacred. In this case that is interpreted as meaning that you may not destroy one life to preserve another. If the babies die it is God's will. Those of us who do not share these beliefs may ask why it should be God's will? But theologically you cannot justify the ways of God to man, nor should you try. This is not a grey area to devout catholics. If the parents agree to the surgery they will be directly responsible for one child's death. If they do not the death of both twins will be God's will. That is the parent's view. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-MUSIC: Conjoined Twins Dilemna From: Pseudolus Date: 27 Sep 00 - 02:22 PM Wow, some threads are certainly heavier than others and I can't imagine getting much heavier than this. I have two girls and they are everything to me. they are 11 and 9 and after hearing about this story the first time I started to think about having to make that choice. Now the situation here is not the same because it has been determined that they will both die without the surgery and thank God my two girls are perfectly healthy. I can not imagine NOT making the choice to go ahead with the surgery to save one. It does seem to come down to language...Are you killing a child or saving the other, or both? Now in this particular case, it really doesn't matter what I think, but, I think the only opinion that should have mattered is that of the parents. No matter how much I disagree, I would have to defer to them.... I have not been close to any situation like this or like the one Praise talked about so I can't say this for sure but when it comes to guilt of any kind I try to see it like this. Would my sibling whose life was lost want me to feel guilty, or would he/she want me to live life to the fullest? If your entire life is spent being guilty, which some folks have implied could happen, then maybe two lives were lost and not one. I would hope that I could take on the challenge of having a fulfilled, happy life because I would be after all, living for two. I keep reading this post because so much of what Praise said is true. I DON'T know what it's like and I never will. And maybe that's the key. It was a short post on a public forum but I learned something from it. There's a benefit to sharing thoughts like these especially from those close enough to the hurt. thank you Praise for the post. you clearly have some strong and deep feelings for this issue and you were able to express them in a way that wasn't challenging or oppressive. I wish you the best and hope that nothing I said was difficult for you. Take Care, Frank |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-MUSIC: Conjoined Twins Dilemna From: Dave (the ancient mariner) Date: 27 Sep 00 - 03:02 PM Respecting the parents wishes is a must in this case(regardless of religion) these are the people who created the lives; who now must agonise over and live with the consequences of their actions. Protecting the medical practitioners who perform such surgery is a must. There are extremists who "make examples" of anyone who does not follow "their" interpretation of Gods Will... Providing the parents are not mentaly unfit to make a judgment, allow them and the doctors the liberty to decide; the state should clearly stay out of it. Right from the onset, this case is interference in the natural process, by both the parents and the medical profession. We progress in time and technology but not wisdom when we interfere with natural biological functions. However, the alternative is to go back in time, suffering intolerable mortality rates amongst women and babies. Clearly this is not a viable or a rational option. Making such life and death judgments is not easy I know, but do it you must. Who better to make them than the people who have the most to lose? Yours, Aye. Dave |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-MUSIC: Conjoined Twins Dilemna From: Mrrzy Date: 27 Sep 00 - 03:43 PM I heartily second the sentiment that I am so glad I don't have this issue to decide myself. My twins were very premature, and now one has developmental delays (the PC term for he's a klutz, I think) and the other doesn't, but the only thing I can say for sure is that I didn't choose to abort when I found out it was twins. I have no earthly idea what I'd have chosen had circumstances required it of me. Anyone remember the movie Sophie's Choice? I remember talking that one all around Robin Hood's barn without knowing what I would have done in her place (I had no children at the time). Were I offered that choice now, I still don't know what I'd do, and now I have 2 kids.... those poor parents. And y'all are right, that poor judge. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-MUSIC: Conjoined Twins Dilemna From: wysiwyg Date: 27 Sep 00 - 04:29 PM Pseudolus,
No harm at all, in fact you led right into what I would like to say next about this. I will say it as clear as I can, but I hope I'll get cut some slack, too, because I am more clear on these things every day but this is where I am today, right now. In addition to my own time working on this, I have counseled a number of people on their prebirth memories and ya know what? From conception, and to a degree that I think would amaze most people, the fetus itself can be in there aware of things and making decisions. What about that side of it? WHAT ABOUT THE BABIES? But then I run right up against the reality in this case that is different from my own or any other I can imagine. These two, theoretically, could decide that one should die for the sake of the other. But they are joined. Dead or alive, it is the process of birthing them that is part of the problem, as I understand it. Could one part die and it not kill the other? Or could one die and yet not impede the birth process of the other? I can't see how, although it may be medically possible. My own twin died and dissolved, and did not miscarry so to speak. And I survived even in the toxic goo that occurred for the next period of time. (Sheesh. There's a story. So I am sorry if my questions just preceding seem gross, but hey, they seem normal to me.) It is thoughts like this that lead me to the conclusion and the request that although the parents and the church and God and the society cerainly deserve some thought or prayer or opinion adjustment, what about the babies? What about the BABIES? And that leads me to another fascinating idea I read somewhere, about medical ethics but I can't recall who or what I was reading. But on the abortion issue, the writer said, well, what if God, knowing all as He does, chooses out of love to remove the soul of the fetus about to be aborted, before the harm occurs-- maybe even before the mother decides something that would be so painful for the baby to realize-- to save it the pain of the event of the abortion? What if His mercy is so far beyond us that we cannot fathom what must actually occur? How then do we, with our limited sight, dare to opine? And is it possible that the parents have had a real chat with God and are expressing His best will for this? So don't you wish there were some conjoined-twin Mudcatters we could ask about this, altho it is quite rude to go up to someone and say, excuse me, you are a member of a group I know nothing about, can you educate me, are you willing to be the token right this very now, or to speak for all of your kind, and BTW, is it rude to think of them as your kind.... and all the PC attempts we make to get closer to one another in the quite rational desire to understand our world. What are the conjoined twins of the world saying? Has anyone asked them? In past interviews I have seen with conjoined twins, they seem to know what I know-- that the closeness of twins is deeper than non-twins can imagine, and more precious than life to many. In the final analysis, for a Christian, another reality is that whatever we humans decide or do, He has a way of making something good out of it. So whatever the outcome in this, I know He will be active in it in some way better than I could plan out. Hard questions, and said maybe with an edge, but no malice or ill will intended. Just a call to think more deeply, ever more deeply, and with thought, not reactivity. Thanks BTW to certain friends who have been making much lap for me this week. I got some good health news yesterday. ~S~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-MUSIC: Conjoined Twins Dilemna From: GUEST,Greyeyes Date: 27 Sep 00 - 04:59 PM Praise, you are right, none of us know how little we know. Strength to the parents, strength to the twins. Give you joy of your good news. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-MUSIC: Conjoined Twins Dilemna From: Naemanson Date: 27 Sep 00 - 05:20 PM Well, as I said, I have an opinion, or rather, I had an opinion. I tend to be rather skeptical of parents who make medical decisions based on their religious views. Thus I feel great anger when parents refuse medical treatment for their children because it is against their religion. It seems to me that it is God's will that the children be treated or the medical procedures wouldn't be available. Be that as it may, this is not necessarily the case here. These parents have two children. One or both of them will die. These are the hard facts. But there are other hard facts touching on the case. There are doctors who are sworn to protect and preserve human life. These are also human beings with hearts and minds, conscious of what should be done. They will have to live with their decision for the rest of their lives. I have two daughters. Choosing between them is not just a horrible thought but is the subject of a recurring stress dream that I have periodically. I wake up sweating and horrified at the choice. But in this case someone must make that decision and it has been made. The child that lives will have to live with the thought that her sister died so that she could live. It is the love of her family that will help her bear that burden. This is an impossible choice. The religious views of the parents are involved but that doesn't resolve the decision for them. If they were allowed to have their way both children would live for a short time and then die. With the intervention one child will live, perhaps a normal lifetime, and the other must die. I hope their faith will provide the comfort they will need to get through the coming years. I hope they will provide a loving, welcoming, environment for the surviving twin and keep precious the memory of their lost child. My thoughts are with them. Praise, you know better than the rest of us how this will affect the surviving child throughout her life. You know where it has enhanced your life and where in your life you have felt pain and sadness because of the loss of your sister. I am thinking you, more than the rest of us, have a very special affinity and empathy for those parents and the children. You are also in my thoughts. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-MUSIC: Conjoined Twins Dilemna From: wysiwyg Date: 27 Sep 00 - 05:45 PM See, now both of me is reading and thinking and feeling, but it's really all me, I am one, or I was, but I am... Oh my. Sorting it out. (Does it help any of you to see me double think out loud BTW?) First, Grey Eyes-- that does not mean we stop wondering, for how else do we grow and learn what is to be learned next? I am sure you did not mean we stop. Brett-- there you are again being so amazing. I knew you were thinking of me already. It's nice of you to say it too. Ten minutes ago I was thinking, if I were asked if I am OK, I would have to say I am OK but today is the first day in a few days I have known it for sure, and again I thank laps, both human and divine ones too. But then someone will say something nice to me in this thread and it brings up another wave of the old hurts offering to be cried and shaken out of my system, and I'm swamped again. It's good to go there to work on this old stuff, for afterwards I am forever more present, more whole, more flexible than before. But there is a cost to it too, and if I stop posting in this thread you'll know I decided I didn't have any more to pay out on it for the time being. But this is important stuff, and also-- I have learned something today. That is, that I was unawarely assuming that the sensitivity I saw this community achieve in the Nazi threads could not be there for me in this issue, and I had withheld my thoughts the last time conjoint twinning was a thread. But I was wrong. And it was wrong of me to assume it. ~S~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-MUSIC: Conjoined Twins Dilemna From: Bill D Date: 27 Sep 00 - 05:50 PM Without being there, I cannot imagine how I could even have an opinion...I hate the idea of 'the LAW' overriding the parents wishes, but I also hate the idea of not saving at least one life. There IS no answer to this! Can you imagine the awkwardness of the surgery suceeding, and the doctors handing one live, but deformed, baby to the parents, saying "here...we kept you from making a mistake"?....I suspect that I am tending toward just letting the parents decide, and being very sad, because either doing 'A', doing 'B', ...or doing nothing... are all lousy choices. I hope everyone concerned finds peace somehow. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-MUSIC: Conjoined Twins Dilemna From: GUEST,Terry Allan Hall Date: 27 Sep 00 - 06:39 PM All I know is that I'm glad I don't have to make such a decision! How can one decide? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: NON-MUSIC: Conjoined Twins Dilemna From: Mrrzy Date: 27 Sep 00 - 08:38 PM Praise, blessings heap upon your head. You said it. |