Baby's "second head" removed -- no moral issues described?

by AlmostAtheist 19 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  AlmostAtheist

  In this news article, a baby is described as being born with a second head, referred to as "the parasite". As a parent, I would have had a hard time looking at this under-developed conjoined twin as a "parasite". It really looks like a second child, though one incapable of independant life. As I understand it, it had no organs of its own, though it appears to have an independant brain.

  I can't say I wouldn't have made the same decision as these parents and had the "parasite" removed in order to allow the "host" child to have a normal life. But surely there were moral and ethical issues raised here that the article doesn't seem to touch.

  It is interesting that the news on this didn't break until the surgery was over. (The picture below is a "before"). Perhaps they expected some trouble and kept it quiet until the parent's wishes were carried out?

  Any thoughts on it?

  Dave

  http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/headline/world/3048425
• 

  under74

  I read a bit on it. I know that there was a similiar instance last year where the baby died....so I think if it was only spoken of in the media afterward that was probably a good thing for the family.
  
  All I know is that it would be sad for the baby to continue on in that way but when I read that the second head was able to blink and smile at times it made me sad....
• 

  DaCheech

  I have a couple of healthy babies, and I thank that they came OK. When wife was pregnant, it was always in my mind.

  This is another reason I am loosing my faith in "Jehovah". If Adam sinned.... should not we get sick as we get old and die? (only!)

  Why are babies and children suffering?

  I should start a thread on this, and see what other people think!
• 

  JustTickledPink

  There are no moral issues to discuss because a head without organs or a body isn't viable. You have to look at the WHOLE... there are cases of conjoined twins that both can survive independantly and they have to weigh the risks of both surviving or both dying, but in this case the extra head, wasn't able to survive on it's own. The fact that the head had a face, is what draws sympathy. You look into a child's eyes and they blink and of course it makes you sad, but I don't think there ever was hope for this baby from Day 1.
• 

  under74

  JTP-
  I don't think anyone is saying that there was any hope for the baby existing on it's own. But for some the sympathy alone would cause a moral issue. I don't think anyone on the thread so far has stated the decision to seperate was wrong...I think it's been the opposite. It just brings up certain emotions most can't get away from.
• 

  Dragonlady76

  I am not sure how I feel about this one, Yes it isn't viable on its own, but it has a brain and it is attached to a living twin, many conjoined twins share organs and would die without the other half, but being just a brain makes it very difficult, I don't think we can really judge as we don't know how the family must have felt and what caused them to come to that decision. In addition we have not observed the child to see what the quality of life is and how the other head affects and interacts with the child, it may just hang there and do nothing.

  Dragonlady76
• 

  SixofNine

  :But surely there were moral and ethical issues raised here that the article doesn't seem to touch.

  The really cool thing about Doctors or parents or anyone really, playing god, is that you get to do some real good in this world; instead of causing pain, you sometimes get to relieve pain. Makes you wonder why it's even called "playing god" sometimes. ;-)
• 

  OICU8it2

  So shocking. Both my daughters are expecting. I wish I hadn't looked.
• 

  DaCheech

  So shocking. Both my daughters are expecting. I wish I hadn't looked.

  I feel for you, and good luck
• 

  AlmostAtheist

  There are no moral issues to discuss because a head without organs or a body isn't viable. You have to look at the WHOLE

  Tell that to Bill Clinton in the year 3000:

  I think for me the question would be, is it right to kill one child to allow the other child to live a normal life? If allowed to stay attached, would both children continue to live at all? If so, would they have a quality of life?

  Could they have relationships? Wouldn't THAT make for some interesting marital issues? "Molly, could you shut your eyes and wear these earplugs for the rest of the evening? Brian and I need to be alone for awhile."

  In the final analysis, there's no argument from me; the separation was the right thing to do. Personally, I would like to think I would do the same thing. But I was surprised that the article didn't even bring the subject up. In fact, it struck me that the article (and probably the sources for the article) used such loaded language as "parasite". The language used suggested that they were trying to shut down any discussion of the second child as a living person to avoid any such controversy.

  Dave