This story disturbs me and has an even more disturbing picture attached to it, so be aware of that before you click on it.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6998205/?GT1=6190
This is the original place I found the story: http://www.livejournal.com/community/religiousdebate/211038.html
It does make me wonder why God would’ve/could’ve/should’ve…and all that.
I don’t know if I would have wanted that head removed. What if I had been that head?
very difficult. I honestly have no idea what I would do as the parent in that situation. It’s obvious (at least as I’ve read) that the “other” twin couldn’t survive. Or that “both” would survive if the surgery wasn’t attempted.
But it really pushes one to think just what IS “human” life.
Very, very difficult. I pray that the little one can now live a good life.
Missy
I also prayed for the other one, even though I question myself over whether or not it is a ‘one’. Sometimes babies are born with extra legs or arms, and we (I, at least) don’t consider the arms or legs people. I cannot help but think that the ‘extra head’ was a person, too, perhaps because it had a face. I don’t know. Something inside me protests at the thought of killing it, more so than abortion (which obviously is going to be discussed in such situations).
You are probably thinking of the extra head as a person because a head has a brain and thoughts and has a concious life where as an arm cannot think. That picture is distrubing.
Do we know, though, that an arm cannot think? I mean…do we know that our thoughts are definately produced in our heads? What does a thought look like? Can we measure it?
I would have chosen removal surgery, had it been my child. Possibly because, despite feelings of guilt or culpability, I believe that death is not a horrific sentence, and I believe the quality of life conveyed to the living child was worth sacrificing the other since together, quality of life for either was questionable at best. Is that my call to make? Yes, if I were the parent, and I would have. Perhaps this is also why I’m pro choice. I do believe we are put in the position of making life/death calls.
I believe thoughts or remembrances can be stored in many parts of the body. Certainly in the uterus of a mother who has given birth before. Relax the brain, the organ involved remembers what it’s supposed to do.
Ever heard of heart transplant patients getting thoughts and ideas that were never theirs until they received the organ of the person with whom those thoughts originated?
Emm, I couldn’t agree with you more. It is absolutely amazing the stuff that gets stored deep in our tissues and cells… any doubts, go to a good deep tissue massage therapist and see what comes up emotionally and physically for you during the session(s). I believe that all of our life events (and even our past life events) imprint into our cells and our DNA. And the things that are traumatic will keep having effects on us until we face them and work through them-- it’s not just psychological, but physiological too. In a lot of cases–not all, mind you-- it’s how/why dis-ease presents.
I think emm has been staying up late watching The Hands of Orlac again! 
But seriously, this discussion brings to mind the effect of the “ghost limb” that many amputees experience. I remeber one fella I knew years ago (double amputee) would sometimes grimace in pain grab the stumps of his knees and say, “Sombody’s stickin’ knives into my feet”. I’ve heard similar stories second hand as well.
-David
I understand from where you’re coming. I think if they had been my children, and it was clear that they would die soon, I would have chosen to not let them have the surgery and allow them to die as ‘naturally’ as possible. But if the one with a full body could only possibly live if I chose to kill the other one, I absolutely don’t know if I could have consented to allow it to be killed.
It’s a tiny bit different than abortion (I am pro-choice, too) because these babies were alive outside the womb (even though one couldn’t live without the body of the other).
I have no idea what to do in this awful case, and would need to know
lots more about it and really think it through.
‘Questionable quality of life’ though
is sometimes called ‘the killer phrase’ by people
who work with the handicapped. It’s highly vague and subjective
and is often applied by others to somebody whose life
they know little about and
can hardly imagine.
My severely
disabled sister’s daughter, who didn’t know her
mother very well, took control of her care
a couple of years ago and immediately no-coded her
because of her low ‘quality of life,’ though my
sister was, in fact, happy and has no interest in
dying prematurely. (The force of the No-Code is that
if anything goes seriously wrong with my sister, the
staff at the facility where she lives will stand
aside and let her die; she is 58 and in reasonably good
health.) What followed was a long, desperate effort
to persuade the daughter that somebody THAT braindamaged
and THAT disabled, who can hardly move, who
doesnt’ know what day or time it is, who can’t
count or read, and who can barely speak,
is actually having a pretty good time.
‘Quality of life’ justifications
for abortion are especially weak: the average newborn given
for adoption in the USA is adoptable 40 times over;
there are plenty of minority families for minority children,
and, that failing, they are now released to white families,
where they are multiply adoptable. Adoption agencies
are quite careful in who they release kids to for adoption;
and there is follow up and support is available. Even Down’s Syndrome
newborns are adoptable, adoption agencies tell me.
Down’s Syndrome kids do well in families and
can have pretty good lives.
There are more sensible and humane ways of sparing
a child a hard time than killing her.
Obviously some children who aren’t aborted will
have a tough time, as some children in any population
will; but it’s unlikely to be as hard as the time I had, frankly.
Physically, psychologically and sexually abused, then orphaned
and homeless–but, gee, Emmline, I’m so glad to be alive!
If there is a justification for abortion on demand, it is unlikely to be
found in the claim that abortion is in the interest of
the unborn child. Best wishes, Jim
Well said Em,
I am in total agreement.
Slan,
D.
Did anyone read the “Who Knew” feature in the January issue of National Geographic? It talked about some tests that a neuroscientist named Henrik Ehrsson performed, where he put a test subject in an MRI machine, with the subjects right hand resting on his leg beneath a solid surface and a realistc rubber hand on top of the surface. They then used a brush to stimulate the finger of the real hand, while stroking the corresponding finger on the fake hand. The subject could see the fake hand but not the real hand. Quoted from the article: “Within 15 seconds the test subjects typically developed a profound sense that the rubber hand was the real hand. The test subjects would flinch when Ehrsson threatened to smash his fist on the rubber hand.. They were surprised when they realized they were unable to lift a rubber finger. They knew what was going on, but no amount of rational thought could dispel the sensory illusion.”
I thought that was pretty amazing…it really shows how much of our reality we create in our own mind. 
(edited to add: the reason I brought this up was because they talked about the phantom pain phenomenon later in the article.)
I could not agree more.
I don’t disagree. But I think these calls should be personal, not legislated. I would do the harsh thing and live with it.(and touché to you if you point out that the other party involved would die with it.)
You’re right though, Jim, that noone can judge someone else’s quality of life.
I just want to clarify something I said earlier about adoption.
Newborns are adoptable 40 times over, but, sadly,
the same isn’t true for older children released into
the system. Older children, toddler-pairs, who are
released for adoption because somebody dies,
goes insane, or goes to prison are hard to adopt.
They are the ones who end up in foster care.
Sometimes people think that the kids in foster
care entered the system as babies and never
got adopted. Not so. In fact the demand for
babies is so high that in about 1990, when last
I heard, it cost 20,000 dollars to
adopt a white newborn in New York state.
The decision in THIS mind-boggling sort of circumstance
is certainly legally in the hands of parents,
and there is no question that physicians often
separate Siammese twins where they know that
one will die as a consequence who otherwise
might have lived. It is, of course, exceedingly
unlikely that any government would wish to
intrude. It would be nice to know what Roman
Catholic doctrine says here, though I would
bet the separation in this case would be
allowed. Best
I believe strongly in adopting older kids or pairs/groups of siblings and I hope that I will be able to do something to help kids in need of adoption later in my life. A lot of my friends have expressed the opinion that adopted kids are ‘trouble’ or damaged goods in some way, and it makes me very sad to hear that mindset. Usually the thinking stems from hearsay about a bad experience that someone else had, and not any direct experience on the part of my friends.
Well said.
I agree.
If I was going to adopt (and old enough to do so) I would rather adopt an older child because it would mean less work some of the hardest things a parent does are in the first few months of a child’s life and if I could get rid of all that responibility I would.