> Subject: Conjoined twins dilemma (was: seduced by science and bias)
> From: Stephen Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> 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.
Okay. Let's just be intellectually honest and admit that there was no
certainty that the twins would have died, and therefore believing it was God's
will that no medical intervention be done is not tantamount to voting for
certain death.
> 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:
I never said God's will could not be invoked in the case of a Caesarian
delivery.
> > > 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".
Okay. So Mary's life was not deliberately taken.
Thank you. That was something I needed to know in order to
make an informed decision. I was unaware of what they did or did not do
for/to the child that died.
> 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.
Right. And my invoking of that "formula" was not for the basis of the morally
correct decision, but a reaction to your earlier statement that the parents and
the church authorities decided both children should die.
> Thus there would be room for God to lend
> a hand. He did not, and Mary died.
Maybe God DID lend a hand. After all, if Mary had almost no chance of
surviving much longer, one could argue in His mercy He took her out of this
world.
> But Jim apparently would not trust God to intervene after
> separation, but only before.
Uh, hang on a second.
I've been arguing that the decision the parents and/or the church
wanted to make wasn't necessarily a "religious but immoral" one.
At what point have I presented my own opinion on
what I would have chosen to do, or what I believe is the
cogent religious and moral interpretation?
At what point have I explicitly stated that I would "not trust God to intervene
after separation, but only before?"
Do not put words in my mouth.
>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?
If you are still asking me to explain the religious rationale behind the
parents and their church, then some questions need to be answered first.
What specific answer did the parents give?
What was the basis for the church taking the position it did?
> 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).
That's wonderful.
> 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.
Most likely, yes.
> It is overwhelmingly probable that
> she would otherwise now be dead.
Agreed.
But the correct moral decision isn't simply because a happy
result came about.
>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.
I'm still interested in the specific rationale that was offered
by those individuals "blinded by religious conviction."
Until then I'm trying to suspend judgment and give them the benefit of the
doubt.
Unless you or anyone else has ever had to be faced with such a difficult
circumstance, it would be unfair to snidely dismiss what they felt, what they
thought, and what they wanted to do.
> This brings me back to the original point for which I cited this
> case: religious beliefs can and do lead to immoral decisions.
In your opinion.
For these parents, perhaps abandoning their religious convictions altogether
was an immoral decision they simply could not make.
We can disagree with their decision, but your anti-religious sentiment
suggests that one should revise, maybe even abandon, religious beliefs
whenever the probability of a better outcome will arise from that
revision/abandonment.
And if that was always true, some very unhappy, even immoral outcomes
would have occurred.
************************************************************************
Jim Guinee, Ph.D.
Director of Training & Adjunct Professor
President, Arkansas College Counselor Association
University of Central Arkansas Counseling Center
313 Bernard Hall Conway, AR 72035 USA
(501) 450-3138 (office) (501) 450-3248 (fax)
"if my people, who are called by my name, will humble
themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from
their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven and
will forgive their sin and will heal their land."
2 Chronicles 7:14
**************************************************************************
---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
