No Perun, that was not pointed at you or anybody else. I simply thought that it was a likely response; if I had read the same words posted from someone else, I would have thought of that reply. Duke's question is somewhat similar:
IronDuke said:
SMX, while I agree with you I feel like I must play devil's advocate:
How do we know we're "meant" to be born in any form? Doesn't that imply some higher power designing our lives? Furthermore, it seems to be that if they seperate them, they share so much brain that one of them will most certainly die. All things being equal, which would you pick: Leftie or Righty?
It is, in my opinion, reasonable to assume that gross deviations from the typical human form are not intended by nature. Conjoined twins are a particularly clear example of this. Natural evolution occurs by subtler means, such as mutation or natural selection of specific traits. Conjoined twins are the result of a pregnancy malfunction. If this type of malfunction were advantageous to the species, why is it so rare?
If one of the twins would have a significantly greater chance of survival than the other, then it could be argued that this twin is the "primary" child, and the other must serve the needs of the primary. Since that sounds superficially harsh, allow me to provide some historical examples.
Consider the notorious case of
Frank Lentini, whose physical form was the result of non-separating triplets. His most obviously unusual feature was his third leg, but he also had other notable oddities. Or consider Margarete Clark (I can't find a web reference for her, but I have a book with extensive documentation about her). She had an entire twin whose rudimentary head was inside her abdomen. To an observer, she had an entire second body (minus a head) growing by the neck out of her stomach. This twin was obviously not "alive" as a separate person, but part of Margarete's body.
So it may be a reasonable point of view to say that one twin is the primary, and the other apparent twin is simply part of the same physiological system. How can we tell if it's really two independent twins, or one person with an extra body? Simple: personality.
In virtually all documented cases of conjoined twins who grew to adulthood without separation, the twins had significantly differing personalities; they were truly two people. Anyone who has ever had children or even just observed newborns knows that they start to exhibit simple personalities within days of birth, and have very clear personalities by the time they're a few months old. So if these twins reach the age of three or four months, and
both of them display similar levels of activity and intelligence (i.e. both bodies are fully functional)
and their personalities are noticably different,
then it may be required by ethics not to attempt a separation if one would die.
But, if one of those twin bodies turns out to have a lack of functionality - physical or mental - then that body should be considered an incompletely formed human, and thus not entitled to the same right to life as a full human. I mean this in the sense that if an incomplete twin is holding back a functional twin, and the functional twin can survive the separation, then the operation should be attempted.
And in an unusual rhetorical maneuver, allow me to quote something I just said:
But, if one of those twin bodies turns out to have a lack of functionality - physical or mental - then that body should be considered an incompletely formed human, and thus not entitled to the same right to life as a full human.
Let me make something absolutely clear: I am
NOT saying that disabled persons have less of a right to life than normal people. I detest such Hitler-esque ideas. I am saying that conjoined twins are a special case where one twin
might turn out to be genuinely subhuman.
If that is true, then the subhuman can be sacrificed.
Let's say both twins are functional, and truly two different people. I've done a bit more research on dicephalic twins. While rare, such cases have had decent lives. I've also learned that
all sets of conjoined twins develop, by pure instinct, the ability to completely block out their awareness of the other twin. While the exact mechanism remains unknown, it is believed that this ability develops because a person would literally go stark raving mad if they could never believe they were alone. So it may not be
necessary to separate these twins for the sake of giving them decent lives.
However, I reiterate my position that such an operation is
preferable if possible, and that the best chances for success likely lie in infancy.
Waiting to give the twins their own choice may actually make such a choice moot, because they are less likely to survive the operation when they are older.
So now the main issue is: what is the chance of
both twins surviving the operation? And are the parents willing to take that chance? Do they consider a newborn baby to be a full person, or just "
meatwith great potential"? An argument
could be made that if the parents are young and healthy enough to have many more children, risking losing these twins may not be so bad. (I am
not making that argument; I'm just saying I can envision its articulation.)
That's really the bottom line: "Good day, Sir and Madam; may I interest you in a game of chance?"
Hey oldtimers: Does this qualify as LooseCannon-long?
