Academia Gone Wild: Identical Twins Separated for 35 Years by "Research" Group

My aggressiveness is intentional, but I would be more than willing to compromise if presented with a rational argument that disagrees with my position. Unfortunately, nobody in this thread has presented one. Am I mistaken in that judgement?

 

I've demonstrated my willingness to discuss this issue by stating my position clearly, by defending that same position throughout the thread, and by admitting at least once that I was wrong about something I posted. Can you say the same for yourself?

 

So you admit to being a douche?

 

I don't know if I am capable of being intentionally aggressive, but I am more of the type who tries to learn to be intentionally unaggressive, if I genuinely want to engage in debate without sounding overly dismissive on ridiculous arguments (in my opinion, of course).

To tell you the truth, I have not formed an opinion one way or another on the topic at hand, nor have I done any research on it. So I can't tell if you are mistaken or not. What I can tell you is that both MadMax and hotballa are known to be very religious, or "faith-based," if you will. That may or may not have anything to do with being irrational, though. If you think you're rightfully outraged at their positions, the same can be said about their thinking of your position.

 

Maybe. So what?

Demanding apologies from someone on a BBS is not my style, but to each his own, he may think he was unfairly accused and feel the need to demand an apology. Big deal -- I've seen on this very BBS people demanding apology for far less perceived "offense," which makes you wonder how in the world they would become so friggin' sensitive when in fact the same people often jump on others in much worse ways.

 

I understand where you're coming from, but I've found that if you allow irrational arguments into a discourse in the spirit of civility, people will take that as an excuse to continue being irrational.

Why shouldn't ridiculous arguments be dismissed? Is it too much to ask people to explain why they think the researchers were unethical? Honestly, I conceive of the possibility that they were. MadMax, however, seems sure that they were, and I am simply asking him to justify his position rather than blindly attack REAL PEOPLE, even going so far as to compare them to Nazi scientists! Is that not f'd up to you? Well it is to me, and I won't ignore it.

 

NewYorker was like a ball of yarn cats couldn't resist playing. Sometimes you can't help watching the spectacle.

LScola is not remotely fun to read.

 

Ok I've skimmed through this thread and here are my two lire:

First off I think this is the best post in this thread and states my thoughts on the subject about as well as I could. While the study at its inception might have been ethical times have certainly changed and as it is an ongoing study we can judge it by the ethics of our time. Given current mores it does seem questionable to me to deliberately separate twins merely for scientific study. While this might've been acceptable then as Invisible Fan notes there probably was already a pool of twins separated already so it seems excessive to deliberately separate these two.

I have no idea whether you are NewYorker or not, personally I don't think so and at the moment its not an issue that bothers me. I do think though you're letting your doggednes get to you and are looking at this issue too narrowly in an attempt to win an argument.

While MadMax and Hotballa haven't given you quantifiable evidence of harm they have given you qualitative evidence of it. The fact that the twins themselves consider harm was done to them by the study is evidence right there that harm can occur from the separation of twins. Obviously this is an extremely limited sample size but the problem with this study is that it already is an extremely limited sample size and as Invisible Fan notes can't be repeated to adjust for that. Given that the very subjects of the study say they are harmed should prove that there is harm.

You are certainly free to press the counter argument of sample size and its quite possible that other studies might show otherwise but the problem is we are specifically looking at the context of this one study.

 

Saying (after finding out that they had a twin they never knew about) that is seems like they were manipulated doesn't really seem like evidence of harm. If someone were never told they were adopted, and found out later in life, they would probably have a similar reaction, but that doesn't mean the adoptive parents caused them some harm by not telling them. Even the twins themselves can't really put forth any actual harm that occurred. This is one of those things where you can look at it and it seems like there could be a problem with it, but I am having trouble finding an actual harm that resulted.

 

did law school take your soul?

 

Their guardian at the time they were separated was the state/orphanage/adoption agency and probably did consent. The adoptive parents were never the guardians of both twins, and thus there would be no issue of getting their consent to separate the twins.

As for them being grown women and knowing what is best for them, that is hardly proof of an actual harm. I am a grown man and I think it would have been best for me if my parents had trained me to be a pro-athlete like Tiger Woods's dad and the Williams sisters' parents did. That doesn't mean I suffered some actual harm because it didn't happen.

What I am saying is that looking back 30 years and saying it sucks that my twin was taken away is not suffering an actual harm.

 

My understanding is they didn't know though, that is kind of the point. If they had known, they could have gotten back together. I don't think they spent their lives obsessing about a twin they didn't know that they had. After they found out, they met up and had a relationship.

 

How else are you supposed to evaluate harm? Psychological harm can't always be quantitated (is that a word?) so you have to rely upon a qualitatitve judgement based upon what the subject themselves say. As far as saying that there was no harm as they were ignorant of the fact that something had occured to them is problematic as that could justify almost anything as long the subject was kept in ignorance. Consider if the experiment involved raising one twin in a cage with no knowledge of life outside of the cage. Now that twin might be well cared for, be physically fine and even accept that their life has always been in a cage and that is normal for them. Now would you say that no harm has been done to that twin as they have never known about life outside of a cage?

The problem is that these twins were the unwilling subject of an experiment. If they believe they have been harmed then clearly the experiment has caused harm to them. That is the result of the experiment and if you choose to ignore it then you are ignoring the evidence provided by it.

 

I didn't think this discussion was going anywhere when I dropped out, but rocketsjudoka ended up making an actual argument linking the twins' self-reported harm to real harm. I agree with what StupidMoniker that this fails to prove actual harm.

I agree that we can't quantify ( ) harm in this particular case (unless the study used a method that we don't have access too; I will revise this point as necessary in 2066). If we are to say with any confidence that harm was done, then, we have to rely on the subjective accounts of the twins and any other relevant persons. So I agree with you so far.

The main problem with your analogy is that it begs the question--what is your standard for comparing life in a cage (clearly harmful) to being seperated from your twin at birth/infancy? If you're wrong and seperation is not harmful, I do not see how that action itself can justify an action that may actually be harmful.

Another, related issue is that there is nothing inherently wrong with making decisions about a child of which s/he will remain ignorant. This is done in adoption all the time. There are certainly some events in a child's life s/he should be aware of at the appropriate time. Is having a twin one of those things? I haven't seen the evidence that would suggest an affirmative answer.

I can conceive of two ways that seperation could be associated with harm. The first is that some sort of psychic connection between twins is damaged when they are seperated. This is highly doubtful, of course. As an aside, I can't help but think that this comic-book image of twinhood might be driving the interest in this story. The other possibility is that they are harmed only after they learn of their counterpart's existence, ensuing in psychological trauma. The link between this effect and the study seems extremely weak, though, and this claim still requires substantiation. Did I leave anthing out?

The twins' testimony, by itself, is not sufficient evidence for your conclusion. They have no way of knowing that their lives would have been better had they been raised together (not to mention the possibility that they would have been seperated regardless of the study). SM demonstrated above that perceived harm does not imply actual harm, even in adults.

What's getting lost in all of this is the possibility that the twins actually benefitted from the study. Are twins better off raised together or seperately (adoption issues aside)? This is a very interesting question, and one that I would think the researchers were examining. Nobody has provided evidence, or even a rudimentary theory, that answers this question. If none exists, this is all moot until 2066.

 

It's not just a question of harm, it's a question of rights. I think most people feel that they have a right to know about their own family. There are some cases where this isn't always seen as the case, as when a mother gives her baby up for adoption. However, in such cases the separation between the biological parent and child is seen as beneficial for the child. In this case, the separation of the twins benefits the scientists, not the twins themselves. That makes it much more difficult to justify taking the twins' right to know about each other.

 

So I assume that if your car is totaled in an accident and the other driver is at fault, you won't sue? After all, there's no way of knowing that you wouldn't have gotten in a worse accident if you had kept driving another block.

Actually, what the twins think of the whole situation is extremely important. Most people that I know value knowledge of their family tree and heritage. There's a reason adopted kids from often like to learn about the culture of their biological families and sometimes even pay for information about their families. It's done because people place a high value on knowledge about themselves and those connected to them. By keeping such information from someone, you are keeping something of value from them which they would otherwise have obtained. That is the definition of harm.