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

No one was given the option of adopting them as twins. They were separated before that, according to this story. It was manipulated ahead of time. Syblings were separated specifically for research purposes. I'm sorry, but I think that's absolutely sick.

 

So separating them because someone only wants to adopt one kid would somehow be better than separating them and actually learning something meaningful? I just don't see the harm. If they had never found out they had a twin, would their lives have been negatively impacted by the study? It seems like people are more angry at the concept than pointing out some specific damage that was done to them.

 

It's not intentional at that point. It's not a scheme to separate children...then it's the necessity. But I'm guessing you wouldn't have trouble finding adoptive parents for twins, anyway.

Absolutely their lives are negatively impacted. You don't have to know you've been robbed of something to be robbed of something.

I'm skeptical of any effort that jacks with people's lives without their consent.

 

I'm pretty sure that most infants don't consent to being adopted.

There is absolutely no ethics issue here.

 

intentionally separating families for the sake of learning what happens when you separate families is an ethical issue to me. i appreciate your "absolute" comment...but it's absolutely wrong from my point of view.

 

Of course I never said that there are no possible ethical issues in academic studies. You failed to identify a single ethical principle being violated here, so instead you try putting words into my mouth to make me look like some kind of sick baby-hater. Nice try, but you're going to have to do better than that. Now make a real argument or admit you were wrong.

Here's a hint: if you're consdiering typing the words, "going by your logic," make sure your post isn't filled with obvious logical fallacies. It makes you look like an idiot.

 

it really doesn't have to get that personal. see if you can make your argument without insulting him.

 

Since the children were already being put up for adoption, it's completely disingenuous to blame the researchers for "seperating families." You're right that I shouldn't have used the word 'absolute' (you shouldn't have either), but you still haven't given a valid reason why there is a violation of ethics in this case. That doesn't mean there isn't one, just that I don't see one and none of you "this is soooo wrong" folks seem to have any reason for thinking as much.

 

Exactly.

And it's why this study has been pretty much universally panned (except in this thread ).

There would be absolutely no problem placing twins in the same family. It's what would be done today -- and should have been done then, had the study's authors not interfered.

Imagine if doctors decided to switch babies without telling the moms -- just to --- you know -- test the ol' nature vs nurture thing out. Both babies would get good homes -- but it would be sorta fun (and totally wrong) to play with family make-up to gather data for a study.

 

1. i used absolute with sarcasm. get it?? ha ha. i'm funny.

2. Why does adoption necessarily mean separation of these syblings? I'm guessing if I searched adopted twins on google I could find a host of links to put here to show that twins are often adopted together. I'm guessing there are families that would be thrilled to adopt twins.

3. i think it's unethical because i presume that having family relationship is better than not having it. certainly it can be screwed up. we screw up everything else. but we're also social creatures...and the connections between twins are beyond me. to deprive them of that, in my mind, simply so you can research how it turns out??? that reminds me of the studies the nazis did in leaving babies fed and cared for...but with no human interaction, cuddling or sense of love. the results aren't good. doing this for the sake of doing it is disgusting to me.

 

I didn't insult him. All I said was that making logical fallacies whlie appealing to your opponent's logic makes you look like an idiot, which it does. Besides, where was your high-and-mighty criticism when hotballa accused me of justifying the intentional endangering of children by handing them over to schizophrenic parents?

And I'm still waiting for a valid argument for there being any sort of ethics violation here.

 

Since we're rationing the use of the word 'absolutely' i guess I have to be more careful how I phrase this....

I know *for a fact* that there would be no problem placing twins with one family, either today...or 30 years ago. It just wasn't a consideration here -- so it's kind of silly to project what may have been extrenuating circumstances, when the circumstances here are plainly obvious. (absolutely obvious even).

 

That's what the entire adoption system is though! The adoptees don't exercise any form of consent.

As SM said - orphaned. adopted twins/siblings are likely separated at an infant age on a regular basis. While this might SOUND wrong on initial reaction I don't know if it is that big of a deal on closer examination.

Separating families is one thing - obviously stripping a parent away from an child will do damage to at least one (parent) and possibly two (the child if old enough. Two genetically similar infants who are barely cognitive of their surroundings aren't really a family in that same sense.

 

Are you serious?

Let's pretend you are.

Adopted kids have their own histories. They are not generic kids handed out like puppies. They are people. Individuals with their own needs and challenges. If you adopt a kid from a foreign country -- it's your responsibilty to teach the kid about his culture and past. It just is.

Here, we had a situation where two kids had the highest possible bond to eachother and their histories. This bond was broken -- not because there was no alternative -- but because researches wanted to see what would happen. That's wrong.

In placing a kid in an adoption, the goal should always be the best interest of the child. Always. No other consideration merrits mentioning. That didn't happen here.

Often, adopted kids struggle with identy, because they lack some of the biological bonds that other kids may have. And the one bond these kids had here was ignored. I doubt you'll any knowledgeable person defending this. Possibly on a superficial -- 'what if' kind of pondering -- but once they thought it through, there is no way they could defend it. And no 'experts' have.

 

I never said "all academic studies." My statement that there are no ethics issues was specific to this case only, and I have been clear about that.

You, however did say this:

Which of course is a wild mischaracterization of my view. If you don't think so, kindly point to the words in my posts that indicate that I have no ethical issue with any twin study involving adoption. If you can't find such words, I expect an appology.

What was your specific point? I've reread the thread, and I can't find it. Is it in a different thread?

Sure you did. You're just trying to backtrack now, which is fine as it indicates that you know you are losing this debate.

Personal attacks will not get you any closer to a valid argument.