Decisions relating to co-joined twins.

D

Dinosaur

Rational Skeptic
Valued Senior Member
Just finished watching a TV drama involving co-joined twins born sharing a single heart. I wonder about the opinions of others here at SciForums.

The medical experts claim that both twins will die in a year or two if not separated (the single heart will not be able to sustain both children). The doctors state that the surgery is potentially risky, but Mary is doomed without or without the surgery, while Suzanne is likely to survive and live a normal life. The parents refuse to authorize the surgery and the doctors hold the twins at the hospital while requesting the legal system to authorize the surgery.

The drama seems to bring up several issues.
  • The parents testified that they could not bear the thought of sacrificing one child to save the other and that the doctors might be wrong. They claim that they will never feel right about the sacrifice and are likely to have mixed emotions about Suzanne if she survives the surgery.

  • Should the government or the medical experts have the authority to make this decision via the courts? I think so, but the attorney for the parents muddied the water a bit by when a doctor said: “Medical experts cannot claim infallibility.” On cross examination, the doctor said that he would opt for the surgery if they were his co-joined twins.

  • An issue that was not involved in the TV drama: What if there was a choice of which twin to save? Would the availability of such a choice change the ethics of the situation?

  • Another potential issue is the religious beliefs of the parents. In the TV drama, religious beliefs were not an issue. Suppose the parents claimed that god should be allowed to decide? If both children die without the surgery, it is his will. If he wants to intervene with a miracle and save both, then he will do so. Should the courts act differently in such a case due to the presence or absence of strong religious beliefs on the part of the parents?
My personal view is to trust the medical experts (after a lot of discussion) and take their advice.

If I were the judge, I would probably decide for the surgery and fervently hope that Suzanne survives it. I would hate to have to listen to the Monday morning quarter backing if both die.
 
Medical ethicists do not own children which are not theirs. Ergo, they have no proper right to intervene in such cases.

In this case, there is an unacceptable air about sacrificing one child for the other. Though both must die, one cannot choose one ethically over the other.
 
So we should let both children die, despite the fact that we could save one, in order to maintain our so called 'ethical standards'. Huh? Isn't that inherently selfish?

"I'm sorry, we could save you, but we can't, because it goes against my code of ethics."
 
Its really up to the doctors mainly to decide how feasible the operation is and the life of the twins and the twins decision to live (if possible in the case)
 
Yea it really comes down to the chances. If odds are good both will survive then do the surgery.

However if it is likely neither would survive, then the decision is a bit harder.
 
Mountainhare:

Any action implies ethical standards.

Moreover, my ethics is partially egoistic in character. So selfishness is not a good censure of me.
 
I wonder if, in this instance, either the doctor(s) or the parents could be charged with negligent homicide assuming the surgery didn't go through.
 
Dinosaur said:
[*]Should the government or the medical experts have the authority to make this decision via the courts?
Click to expand...
NO! a million zillion times NO!
a person has a god given right to determine what happens to their body.
this is exactly why i am pro abortion.
 
Leopold99: Does the following apply to cojoined twins a week old?
a person has a god given right to determine what happens to their body.
Click to expand...
In some situations it would be ideal if you could wait until a person was old enough to make an informed decision, but that is not always the case.

This situation seems to be an issue of parental rights versus society's right to intevene on behalf of young children. This issue can be a terrible one when a 10 year old is dangerously ill and agrees with religous parents who believe that some medical treatment is contrary to their religious beliefs.
 
in cases involving minors the decision rests with the parents, not the medical community or the government.
in cases where the minor is the ward of the state does the state have any say.
 
My life partner has asthma. When she has an attack and cannot breathe, it is a traumatic and terrifying experience until she uses her medication.

A few years ago, there was an article about a young girl (5 or 6 years old) dying during an asthmatic attack. The parents due to their religious beliefs never took their daughter to a doctor, allowing her to suffer the attacks when they occurred. After the child died, they merely talked about it being god’s will. There was some attempt to remove their other children from the home, but I do not know what came of this.

My friend said.
Those parents should be hung up by the most sensitive parts of their anatomy with duct tape over their mouth and nostrils. If one of them developed asthma as an adult, they would have gone to the ER the first time they could not breathe. I never heard of one of these adult dastards suffering from anything worse than a headache without going to a doctor for relief.
Click to expand...
Somebody should intervene in such cases. You would not knowingly allow a parent to beat or starve their child to death. Why allow them to kill by denial of medical care?

There should be some limits on the rights of parents to make decisions for their children.
 
Dinosaur:

This situation does not entail simply aiding one child - it entails willfully killing one to save the other.
 
my primary concern about this is setting a precedent.
once it's set where will it stop? forced abortions? forced lobotomys? forced plastic surgery?

in the asthmatic case the parents, in my opinion, is guilty of murder.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top