Question:
Neal Feldman <silverst…@home.net> wrote in message
news:39D209C1.4960B32E@home.net… > > I guess this is what separates us from the animals. If this same stuation > > occured in the wild the mother would have killed both. "No-brainer" > > certainly, but I still would not like to be the one to say OK, not as a > > mother (or father), the guilt, no matter how irrational, would still be > > there and be very real. Thankfully the courts were able to intervene, lets > > hope that the stronger twin survives. > > Sam. > In a discussion of logic how do animals work into it? Just curious. Do you > know many logical animals?
I don’t think there is any logic, as such, with animals. I think it is more a instinctive knowledge that the mother has that a disabled offspring would never survive in the wild anyway, so why prolong the inevitable. Sam.
Response:
>From: "Samantha Whitfield" coolcr…@smartchat.net.au >I don’t think there is any logic, as such, with animals. I think it is more a
instinctive knowledge that the mother has that a disabled offspring would never survive in the wild anyway, so why prolong the inevitable. As long as the mother doesn’t gnaw off the weaker of the kids and leave her in the woods while taking the other one home to lick her wounds.
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Ron wrote: > In article <20000924214628.19351.00000…@ng-fw1.aol.com>, > cpscsw…@aol.com (CPSCswrkr) wrote: > > I’d be interested in the opinions of medical professionals from other > places in > > the world. Is it truly a situation where at least one child will > inevitably > > die? > > What can be gained or lost by delaying the surgery as long as > possible? The > > medical/ethical dilemma might resolve itself. > > Questions and arguments about the quality of life generally trouble > me. For > > me, quality of life is a spiritual thing. I don’t know of anyone who > can > > measure spirituality or the quality of spiritual life in those unable > to > > communicate. I would not choose to end spiritual life. For me, it’s > a matter > > of faith. > National Public Radio had a segment on this case 3 days ago. As I > understand it they share a heart and a lung. One is somewhat weaker > than the other, and it appears that they will seperate the children by > court order. The heart and lung going to the stronger of the two > children. The parents dont want seperation, but to have nature take > its course, which according to the doctors will cause both to die. > There was also mention that the parents knew that these children were > conjoined long before birth. > Its a very sad case IMO, one that deserves a better ending. > Ron
Better ending or not there is but one sole logical position on this. And that is the one being ordered. The parental rights, as they should be, are stopped at the point of serious harm to the child. There is no choice regarding the weaker twin… it will die as surely as the sun will rise tomorrow. So saving that twin is not an option, it is not an issue. It just will not happen. Saving the stronger twin, OTOH, is possible and probable, should the surgury be performed properly and soon. As such waiting around will not benefit the weaker twin in any significant way and will potentially harm the stronger twin in many significant ways, up to and including its expiration. I never cease to be amazed at how people cloud issues with emotionalistic BS when the decision is truly what can only be described as a ‘no-brainer’. Sure, it is unfortunate and sad that the weaker twin will not survive. But that is not going to be altered either way you go. It is solely a matter of whether the stronger twin will be allowed to survive or not. That is the only question which is really in any legitimate way at issue. All the handwringing and wailing about it will not change it. Sometimes life just isn’t fair. Deal with it and get on with life. — ============================================================= Home Page: http://members.home.net/silverstorm/ We will never rest until Gestapo CPS is completely abolished!
Response:
LONDON, Sept. 22 – A London Appeals court on Friday ruled that doctors may operate to separate 1 1/2 month-old Siamese twin girls against the wishes of the parents, who were determined to submit to "God’s will." The parents are permitted to appeal to Britain’s highest court, but they had not made a decision. AN ATTORNEY for the weaker twin, who will die if they are separated, is also undecided about an appeal. Doctors said the girls, identified only as Jodie and Mary, will die within months if they remain together, but that Jodie could survive on her own. The ruling by the three judges of the Court of Appeal was unanimous. Writing for the court, Justice Alan Ward said even though the weaker twin, Mary, has a right to life, she’s only alive because she "sucks the lifeblood" of her stronger sister, Jodie. Ward said Jodie is entitled to protest that Mary is killing her. And he said sadly that Mary is beyond any help. Ward said the best interest of the twins is to give one of them a chance at life. The twins, joined at the lower abdomen, were born Aug. 8 at St. Mary’ s Hospital in Manchester. "I freely confess to having found it truly difficult to decide – difficult because of the scale of the tragedy for the parents and the twins, difficult for the seemingly irreconcilable conflicts of moral and ethical values and difficult because the search for settled legal principle has been especially arduous and conducted under real pressure of time," said Justice Ward, reading the court’s decision. SPECIALISTS SUPPORT DECISION Two medical specialists appointed by the court to review the case endorsed surgery. ’The parents, identified only as Roman Catholics from a European country, had appealed a lower court ruling in favor of surgery. They were supported by the Roman Catholic archbishop of Westminster, Cormac Murphy O’Connor. During hearings earlier this month, Tim Owen, a barrister appointed to represent Jodie’s interests, argued that Mary had no chance of long-term survival, and it was "unreal" to consider Mary’s interests separately from those of Jodie. "Without Jodie, Mary will die. With Mary, Jodie will die," Owen said. "The purpose of the operation is wholly to maintain life and not to accelerate death by mercy killing or otherwise," Owen said. DON’T END A CHILD’S LIFE David Harris, a lawyer appointed to represent Mary, argued that she had an interest in continuing her life unless proven otherwise. "Although this is a life of short duration very severely handicapped, there is insufficient evidence that it is so intolerable as to render it in the child’s best interests that it should end," Harris said. The parents, in a statement read in court on Sept. 4, said they had come to England "to give our babies the very best chance for life in the very best place." "Now things have gone very badly wrong and we find ourselves in this very difficult situation. … We believe that nature should take its course. If it’s God’s will that both our children should not survive then so be it," they said. Ron <lucky5ed…@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8pvt50$me3$1@nnrp1.deja.com… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Hi All, > This is not quite on topic for the NG, but I found it interesting, and > it applies to some of the things I have seen here. > The dilemma of the conjoined twins > By Roger Cossack > CNN Legal Analyst > September 11, 2000 > Web posted at: 1:06 p.m. EDT (1706 GMT) > (CNN) — It is traditional that on the first day of law school, > usually in their first class, students are presented with a set of > facts for which there is no answer. At my first day at UCLA the facts > concerned a group of spelunkers who became hopelessly lost in a series > of caves. After many days of wandering, it became clear that for any of > them to survive, one of the group would have to die and the others > would practice cannibalism. > What we were being taught was not who was right or wrong, but that as > future advocates we had to learn how to articulate either side of a > debate with equal vigor. But I also learned something else from that > exercise: that life often presents us with choices that are neither > black nor white, and that no matter what is decided, the queasiness > that certain events cause may never go away or be finally resolved. > So it is with the tragic story of the conjoined twins Jodie and Mary > (fictional names) whose parents took them to England for medical help > only to find that British law may cause the death of Jodie. > The choice is horrible. Doctors believe that if nothing is done both > girls will die. But to save Jodie, the stronger twin, Mary must be > separated which will inevitably cause her death. > The parents, who reportedly are devout Catholics, have requested that > nothing be done. They choose to leave the twins’ fate in the hands of > their God. But in England, unlike America, the wishes of the parents > are not paramount. Barristers have been appointed to represent each > twin as well as the parents and, of course, each infant has a > compelling argument. > Jodie’s counsel argues that her life systems are supporting both of the > girls and, since she will survive if separated, her life must be > sustained. Furthermore, they argue that to do nothing would be > manslaughter — act of omission that would amount to gross negligence > or even willfulness that causes a death. Mary’s counsel counters with > the argument that to separate her would also be tantamount to > manslaughter or perhaps even murder. Mary is alive, he argues, and to > do anything to end her life is not only immoral but perhaps criminal. > Sometimes when people ask me to define the law, I reply by saying that > law is a way of defining how we resolve disputes at a particular time > in our existence. As society progresses and changes, so should the law. > What was the law of the Pecos can no longer be the law of our urban > areas. Just recently we have read about Napster, a computer program > that allows for the trading of music from one Internet user to the > other without any requirement of paying. This event presents problems > with the traditional laws of copyright as well as intellectual property > that no one could have imagined. > But the Napster problems can be solved, maybe not to everyone’s > satisfaction, but they can be resolved. And although a resolution will > come to the tragic story of the twins, it will never truly be one that > is the "right" one. > The law can offer solutions to factual disputes, but how can it resolve > moral and ethical ones? How can the law tell these heartbroken parents > that their religious beliefs will not control what happens to their > daughters? How can the law decide who will live between two innocent > parties? And, I suppose, an equally troubling question is whether the > British government should be involved in the decision-making process at > all. > I wish I could offer a well-reasoned opinion on this, one that could > stand the test of argument, and know that at the very least I took a > stand. But honestly, I’m no better off with these events than I was > that first day in law school. I simply don’t know. > http://www.cnn.com/2000/LAW/09/columns/cossack.twins.9.11/ > — > Not all is as it seems, In some cases life really does imitate art. > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ > Before you buy.
Response:
Samantha Whitfield wrote: > Neal Feldman <silverst…@home.net> wrote in message > news:39CF619C.EF18E27E@home.net… > > Better ending or not there is but one sole logical position on this. And > > that is the one being ordered. The parental rights, as they should be, > are > > stopped at the point of serious harm to the child. There is no choice > > regarding the weaker twin… it will die as surely as the sun will rise > > tomorrow. So saving that twin is not an option, it is not an issue. It > > just will not happen. > I agree Neal.
Thank you. > My heart certainly goes out to these parents. And I think that > taking the decision away from them is a good one and one that they will one > day appreciate. > How can a parent make this choice, they are far too emotionally involved, by > the court stepping in and making this decision for them, it is preventing > them the heart ache, guilt etc that comes with them having to make the same > decision. If faced with the same circumstances I think I would appreciate > not having to make the decision.
Obviously. > > I never cease to be amazed at how people cloud issues with emotionalistic > > BS when the decision is truly what can only be described as a ‘no-brainer’. > I guess this is what separates us from the animals. If this same stuation > occured in the wild the mother would have killed both. "No-brainer" > certainly, but I still would not like to be the one to say OK, not as a > mother (or father), the guilt, no matter how irrational, would still be > there and be very real. Thankfully the courts were able to intervene, lets > hope that the stronger twin survives. > Sam.
In a discussion of logic how do animals work into it? Just curious. Do you know many logical animals? — ============================================================= Home Page: http://members.home.net/silverstorm/ We will never rest until Gestapo CPS is completely abolished!
Response:
I’d be interested in the opinions of medical professionals from other places in the world. Is it truly a situation where at least one child will inevitably die? What can be gained or lost by delaying the surgery as long as possible? The medical/ethical dilemma might resolve itself. Questions and arguments about the quality of life generally trouble me. For me, quality of life is a spiritual thing. I don’t know of anyone who can measure spirituality or the quality of spiritual life in those unable to communicate. I would not choose to end spiritual life. For me, it’s a matter of faith.
Response:
In article <20000924214628.19351.00000…@ng-fw1.aol.com>, cpscsw…@aol.com (CPSCswrkr) wrote: – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> I’d be interested in the opinions of medical professionals from other places in > the world. Is it truly a situation where at least one child will inevitably > die? > What can be gained or lost by delaying the surgery as long as possible? The > medical/ethical dilemma might resolve itself. > Questions and arguments about the quality of life generally trouble me. For > me, quality of life is a spiritual thing. I don’t know of anyone who can > measure spirituality or the quality of spiritual life in those unable to > communicate. I would not choose to end spiritual life. For me, it’s a matter > of faith.
National Public Radio had a segment on this case 3 days ago. As I understand it they share a heart and a lung. One is somewhat weaker than the other, and it appears that they will seperate the children by court order. The heart and lung going to the stronger of the two children. The parents dont want seperation, but to have nature take its course, which according to the doctors will cause both to die. There was also mention that the parents knew that these children were conjoined long before birth. Its a very sad case IMO, one that deserves a better ending. Ron — Not all is as it seems, In some cases life really does imitate art. Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.
Response:
Neal Feldman <silverst…@home.net> wrote in message
news:39CF619C.EF18E27E@home.net… > Better ending or not there is but one sole logical position on this. And > that is the one being ordered. The parental rights, as they should be, are > stopped at the point of serious harm to the child. There is no choice > regarding the weaker twin… it will die as surely as the sun will rise > tomorrow. So saving that twin is not an option, it is not an issue. It > just will not happen.
I agree Neal. My heart certainly goes out to these parents. And I think that taking the decision away from them is a good one and one that they will one day appreciate. How can a parent make this choice, they are far too emotionally involved, by the court stepping in and making this decision for them, it is preventing them the heart ache, guilt etc that comes with them having to make the same decision. If faced with the same circumstances I think I would appreciate not having to make the decision. > I never cease to be amazed at how people cloud issues with emotionalistic > BS when the decision is truly what can only be described as a
‘no-brainer’. I guess this is what separates us from the animals. If this same stuation occured in the wild the mother would have killed both. "No-brainer" certainly, but I still would not like to be the one to say OK, not as a mother (or father), the guilt, no matter how irrational, would still be there and be very real. Thankfully the courts were able to intervene, lets hope that the stronger twin survives. Sam.
Response:
Hi All, This is not quite on topic for the NG, but I found it interesting, and it applies to some of the things I have seen here. The dilemma of the conjoined twins By Roger Cossack CNN Legal Analyst September 11, 2000 Web posted at: 1:06 p.m. EDT (1706 GMT) (CNN) — It is traditional that on the first day of law school, usually in their first class, students are presented with a set of facts for which there is no answer. At my first day at UCLA the facts concerned a group of spelunkers who became hopelessly lost in a series of caves. After many days of wandering, it became clear that for any of them to survive, one of the group would have to die and the others would practice cannibalism. What we were being taught was not who was right or wrong, but that as future advocates we had to learn how to articulate either side of a debate with equal vigor. But I also learned something else from that exercise: that life often presents us with choices that are neither black nor white, and that no matter what is decided, the queasiness that certain events cause may never go away or be finally resolved. So it is with the tragic story of the conjoined twins Jodie and Mary (fictional names) whose parents took them to England for medical help only to find that British law may cause the death of Jodie. The choice is horrible. Doctors believe that if nothing is done both girls will die. But to save Jodie, the stronger twin, Mary must be separated which will inevitably cause her death. The parents, who reportedly are devout Catholics, have requested that nothing be done. They choose to leave the twins’ fate in the hands of their God. But in England, unlike America, the wishes of the parents are not paramount. Barristers have been appointed to represent each twin as well as the parents and, of course, each infant has a compelling argument. Jodie’s counsel argues that her life systems are supporting both of the girls and, since she will survive if separated, her life must be sustained. Furthermore, they argue that to do nothing would be manslaughter — act of omission that would amount to gross negligence or even willfulness that causes a death. Mary’s counsel counters with the argument that to separate her would also be tantamount to manslaughter or perhaps even murder. Mary is alive, he argues, and to do anything to end her life is not only immoral but perhaps criminal. Sometimes when people ask me to define the law, I reply by saying that law is a way of defining how we resolve disputes at a particular time in our existence. As society progresses and changes, so should the law. What was the law of the Pecos can no longer be the law of our urban areas. Just recently we have read about Napster, a computer program that allows for the trading of music from one Internet user to the other without any requirement of paying. This event presents problems with the traditional laws of copyright as well as intellectual property that no one could have imagined. But the Napster problems can be solved, maybe not to everyone’s satisfaction, but they can be resolved. And although a resolution will come to the tragic story of the twins, it will never truly be one that is the "right" one. The law can offer solutions to factual disputes, but how can it resolve moral and ethical ones? How can the law tell these heartbroken parents that their religious beliefs will not control what happens to their daughters? How can the law decide who will live between two innocent parties? And, I suppose, an equally troubling question is whether the British government should be involved in the decision-making process at all. I wish I could offer a well-reasoned opinion on this, one that could stand the test of argument, and know that at the very least I took a stand. But honestly, I’m no better off with these events than I was that first day in law school. I simply don’t know. http://www.cnn.com/2000/LAW/09/columns/cossack.twins.9.11/ — Not all is as it seems, In some cases life really does imitate art. Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.
Response:
Posted in Roman Catholic School | 
No Comments » | 