Congenial Twins Issue

Actually, I believe it is the other way around. The courts have sided with the doctors who wish to separate the 2 knowing that 1 will most probably die. The parents have appealed that ruling.

------------------

 

In this particular situation. I think the parents have the right to decide. They are the parents and that is the bottom line. They are best people to make this decision no matter how it turns out. The parents are the ones who not only have to live with the decisions being made, but the results of that decision.

In all these co-joined twin situations, the decision is difficult. Let them live, separate them, ect.. I think you've got to look at how happy the twins are that have survived. It seems to me that they are glad to be alive despite their condition. They seem to make their way through the world. And if they don't have a problem with it, why should we. So I'm for letting them be if the majortity of them are happy. From the outside looking in, I think we sometimes place to much value on how we think we would feel if we were the twins. What they actually feel is a whole new perspective. Although I'm not really sure how they feel.




------------------
humble, but hungry.

 

It is the parents decision.

Right or wrong
Life or death
It is the parents decision..period

------------------
Houston Rockets Forever!!
In Rudy We Trust

 

Why do people think this should be the parents' decision? Its not, should we let the twins watch TV after 8, or what school should we send them to? Its more like, should we let one of them (the healthy one) die senselessly? The other one is going to die anyway. Basically the parents are willing to throw the save-able baby out with the other. I don't think they should be allowed to do that - refuse medical treatment that the child needs to live.

------------------

 

Check below for my answer
------------------
Houston Rockets Forever!!
In Rudy We Trust


[This message has been edited by Dennis2112 (edited September 29, 2000).]

 

I do not feel the same way about abortion, Abortion is wrong in the eyes of God. Besides, this is totally unrelated to that issue. They were born the way they are. It is not for a court to decide what to do with these twins. God had this happen for a purpose and that purpose is not known by any man. The Parents will bear the burden of their decision, which ever direction they may decide to take.

If you have a baby that you cannot take care of or do not want, give it up for adoption. There are so many lovely couples who cannot have babies that would provide a good home. Abortion(I am not trying to tell people what to believe)is wrong.

Again, people have their own opinions about this subject and I would never wish to impose my opinions on anybody.

------------------
Houston Rockets Forever!!
In Rudy We Trust


[This message has been edited by Dennis2112 (edited September 29, 2000).]

 

I find it interesting that someone could defend this practice, and be anti-abortion, and place all their beliefs "god's will".

Don't tell me what God wills. It is a poor excuse to say, don't treat that child, because God willed her to be born that way. To carry this argument to the nth degree, if someone is stricken with cancer, and that is God's will, should we then not give them chemotherapy because's God's purpose is for them to die? Of course not.

"Thou shalt not kill" is what it says in the bible. Abortion is or is not a sin based on one's belief as to whether the fetus is alive. But there is no question here that this child IS alive, and will die if the parents have their way. To stand by and let that happen, to me, is unquestionably murder.

------------------
Btw, "congenial" means pleasant or harmonious. The term here is "conjoined twins".

[This message has been edited by SamCassell (edited September 29, 2000).]

 

My personal opinion, is that the parent's would be commiting negligent homicide to not go through with the operation. They know that both children will die if nothing is done. They know it is possible to save one of the children. I don't see how there could be any confusion as to which the correct answer is. Oh, and as far as God's will, I don't care until he personally comes and talks to me about the greater good of this, 'cause no matter how I look at it, there's nothing good coming out of letting them both die.

Lord Tree

------------------
I am Jack's raging message.

 

I'm a Pro-choice conservative.

Seeing as the children are too young to make their own decision, just like a fetus, I say let the parents decide.

------------------
stop posting my damn signature

 

It should be the parents decision and theirs alone. They brought the kid(s) into this world and have to deal with it on a daily basis. No one else needs to get involved.

As for the abortion comparision, I don't think there is a legitimate arguement. There are certain circumstances where I believe abortion can be justified, but not in a normal, healthy pregnancy. What I mean is if the woman is raped and gets pregnant or if the baby is deformed, as in this case, it should be up to the mother.

------------------
Too often, we lose sight of life's simple pleasures.

Remember, when someone annoys you it takes 42 muscles in your face to frown, but it only takes 4 muscles to extend your arm and pimp-slap the mother****** upside the head!

 

Not to be a stickler, but wouldn't these be conjoined twins rather than congenial twins. I always thought congenial meant a person was agreeable or pleasant. Maybe you could say their condition was conjenital, but I don't think congenial gets it.

(And yes, I am trying to steer the conversation away from the abortion debate)

------------------
Houston Sports Board
DFW Sports Board

 

At what point is something not a parent's decision? A parent doesn't have the right to choose that an otherwise perfectly healthy child will die. A parent doesn't have the right to beat a child. How is this really that different from the above issue?

Lord Tree

------------------
I am Jack's raging message.

 

Pretty interesting issue, we were talking about this in my Law class today. I agree with the majority here, that going through with the operation is the more logical and reasonable choice. To follow that old utilitarian principle, "achieving the greatest happiness or good for the greatest number of people", saving the life of one child for the sake of the other, rather than inevitably watching them both suffer and die. What I do not know is, if Jodie (the girl that can survive alone), would live a relatively normal life, and capable of living a happy life. That could be a factor.

But with that said, the parent's should decide what is to be done. If their morals and beliefs go against this operation, who are we to impose - even if its the more practical decision? The following quote by the justice Alan Ward I found very bold, and somewhat inappropriate.

"Though Mary has a right to life, she has little right to be alive. She is alive because and only because - to put it bluntly but nonetheless accurately - she sucks the life-blood of Jodie and her parasitic living will soon be the cause of Jodie ceasing to live. Jodie is entitled to protest that Mary is killing her. Nobody but the doctors can help Jodie. Mary sadly is beyond help."

Azim da Dream

------------------
We don't live for the destination. We live for the journey.
http://www.clutchtown.com

 

Dennis: I respect your adoption argument but what about black crack babies or Hispanic babies born with AIDS or babies with down syndrome? Everyone wants a little white baby, but the VAST majority of children placed up for adoption are not white and many are never adopted and become wards of the state.

I think adoption is a wonderful, wonderful thing and I would never discourage anyone from doing it. My point is simply that adoption is not the answer for everyone on your "here's what to do instead of an abortion" list.

My father and mother both taught quite a few pregnant 16 year old girls whose parents had kicked them out of the house so they had to live in a school for pregnant girls. If every abortion candidate was a healthy, well-off mother, great. But, they aren't and finding support as an unwed young mother - having to miss school and jobs that may not have you back after you come back from having your baby - isn't easy.

------------------
Save Our Rockets and Comets
SaveOurRockets.com

 

How can you say you are pro-choice (the parents have the right to kill the fetus), but these parents do not have the right to hope to save the second twin? To me, that is total contradicting.
FYI: If I was in the situation, I would seperate them, but i believe the parents have the final word.

------------------
...out with the old, in with the new...

 

Jeff, I do not have any problem with adopting any baby regardless of race and other issues. I know there are alot of people who feel the same way.

And to those people who think that I was preaching to them about God's will, No man or woman on this planet knows what he has in store for us all. Whether you believe it or not, it is a personal choice. The bible(if you believe it) says that God knows who we are before we are born which implies that we are alive even in the womb. Now some studies have come out that state , Memories start when we are in the womb. Now I do not know if I believe that but if that is true, maybe abortion is wrong and is killing.

Let me re-state that I am not pushing my beliefs on anybody, I just wanted to clarify my position.



------------------
Houston Rockets Forever!!
In Rudy We Trust