On Mon, 8 Oct 2001, James Guinee wrote:
> Perhaps you see it as a small point, but how *certain* were these deaths?
There is no certainty in science. There is probability: low,
high, and overwhelming. My understanding is that in this case,
given the severity of the medical problems faced by the twins
while joined, expert opinion was that the probability that both
would die in the face of inaction ("God's will") was
overwhelming. Shorthand version, although sophistry will not
allow me to say it: a certainty.
Next: I answered my own question about why a Caesarian delivery
was performed (it was, I've now verified) rather than waiting on
"God's will" by speculating:
> > Perhaps the answer would be that at that point it appeared that
> > the operation could save the life of all three. But couldn't
> > the same argument be applied to the surgery to separate Jodie and
> > Mary? Couldn't we argue that the operation should first take
> > place, and then "God's will" would determine whether Mary (the
> > weaker twin) would live or die, that "her fate would be left in
> > God's hands" at that point?
Jim replied:
> Yes, one could make that argument. But was one life terminated during the
> procedure, or not? That makes a big difference.
No one "terminated" a life. Mary was much weaker, was severely
brain-damaged, had no significant heart or lung function, and
"was totally dependent on the blood supply of the stronger
sister" (1) whose life she was draining. As described by ABC News
(2), "Mary did not survive the operation, despite doctors'
efforts to revive her". If I followed the formula advocated by
Jim, I'd still have to admit that while there was an overwhelming
probability that Mary would not survive separation, I could not
say that it was certain. Thus there would be room for God to lend
a hand. He did not, and Mary died.
But Jim apparently would not trust God to intervene after
separation, but only before. Yet in all three of the
circumstances I outlined, there was no certainty: no certainty
that three would die without a Caesarian, nor two without
separation, nor one after separation (although overwhelmingly
probable in each case). So I return to my question: Why was the
need for "God's will" invoked before separation, and only at this
point?
Follow-up note: the latest news I've seen is that on April 23,
2001, "Jodie has made steady progress since the operation, and
could be well enough to go home in a fortnight" (1). This baby
owes her life to the decision of the judges to do the right thing
and order separation against the wishes of her parents and their
contrary religious beliefs. It is overwhelmingly probable that
she would otherwise now be dead. I think the fact that a moral
decision of the highest quality was made in this case is clear to
all except those blinded by religious conviction.
This brings me back to the original point for which I cited this
case: religious beliefs can and do lead to immoral decisions.
-Stephen
Sources:
(1)
http://www.netdoctor.co.uk/hilaryjones/secondopinion/twins.htm
(2)
http://abcnews.go.com/onair/2020/PRIMETIME_conjoinedtwins_feature.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Black, Ph.D. tel: (819) 822-9600 ext 2470
Department of Psychology fax: (819) 822-9661
Bishop's University e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Lennoxville, QC
J1M 1Z7
Canada Department web page at http://www.ubishops.ca/ccc/div/soc/psy
Check out TIPS listserv for teachers of psychology at:
http://www.frostburg.edu/dept/psyc/southerly/tips/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
