Strange Baby.....

Nitrofox125 · Post by **Nitrofox125** » Mon Feb 21, 2005 2:50 pm

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6998205

An Egyptian baby born with two heads was in stable condition on Sunday after doctors at a provincial hospital removed one of the heads in a 13-hour operation, the doctors said.

WarAdvocat · Post by **WarAdvocat** » Mon Feb 21, 2005 3:03 pm

ok ... whoah... freaky shizzle

Man... I feel real wierd about them killing the twin too.. I mean, it was capable of smiling and blinking...Who is to say that it was not a sentient, rational, human entity? Would it have developed a capacity to communicate if they'd allowed it to live longer??

As far as I'm concerned...It horrifies me that they killed it but I don't know what else they could have done? Doomed the both of them to a life of utter freakdom?

Lobber · Post by **Lobber** » Mon Feb 21, 2005 3:06 pm

It had not developed it's own body or life support system. If you kept it alive on a life support machine it would be a curse. Better to let it die now.

I guess this is a case where two heads are NOT better than one.

roid · Post by **roid** » Mon Feb 21, 2005 8:54 pm

from the article it seemed to be doing all right. it was connected to the blood flow of the first twin.

dissent · Post by **dissent** » Mon Feb 21, 2005 9:27 pm

From what I read, I don't think there would have been much hope for survival for the partially formed twin. Seems to me they will be fortunate to keep the one child alive. Pretty amazing bit of surgery.

JMEaT · Post by **JMEaT** » Mon Feb 21, 2005 9:34 pm

Krom · Post by **Krom** » Mon Feb 21, 2005 10:09 pm

Whoa!

Sapphire Wolf · Post by **Sapphire Wolf** » Mon Feb 21, 2005 11:08 pm

freaky!

BigSlideHimself · Post by **BigSlideHimself** » Mon Feb 21, 2005 11:19 pm

Why does this sort of thing always happen to egyptian births?

Avder · Post by **Avder** » Tue Feb 22, 2005 3:20 am

Must be some side effect of them getting help from aliens to build the pyramids.

WarAdvocat · Post by **WarAdvocat** » Tue Feb 22, 2005 7:56 am

For me the ethical quandary is whether they should have done the surgery at all...I mean, I agree that the surgery was probably "necessary"...but if there is a hell, is everyone involved going to end up there for callously sentencing this (possibly) self-aware and human tumor to death?

Tricord · Post by **Tricord** » Tue Feb 22, 2005 8:18 am

I don't think that second head is self-aware, let alone able to speak, breathe, etc. It's just hanging there as living tissue missing out everything higher than microbiological functionality.

It's missing the spinal cortex, without which your brain can't do much.

Lobber · Post by **Lobber** » Tue Feb 22, 2005 9:41 am

I just had a thought, what do you suppose the reaction of the mother was seeing this freak come out of her?

Dedman · Post by **Dedman** » Tue Feb 22, 2005 10:21 am

Lobber wrote:It had not developed it's own body or life support system. If you kept it alive on a life support machine it would be a curse. Better to let it die now.

Hmmmm, some might say the same could be said of a developing fetus.

Lobber · Post by **Lobber** » Tue Feb 22, 2005 10:50 am

Not really.

El Ka Bong · Post by **El Ka Bong** » Tue Feb 22, 2005 11:00 am

To alleviate these freaky facts with humour, scenes from futurama come to mind...

Dedman · Post by **Dedman** » Tue Feb 22, 2005 11:16 am

Lobber wrote:Not really.

Yes really.

Lobber · Post by **Lobber** » Tue Feb 22, 2005 11:27 am

No, not really. You can't compare the two side by side. Too many variables are different.

Beowulf · Post by **Beowulf** » Tue Feb 22, 2005 11:31 am

Let's see...let the child live his life miserably as an outcast with a SECOND HEAD attached him, or let him lead a normal life and detach the second head that probably wouldn't live long anyway. It's not a question for me. Why subject your child to that?

Darkside Heartless · Post by **Darkside Heartless** » Tue Feb 22, 2005 11:59 am

It was in defense of the whole child.
It wouldn't have lived long with half a body attached to it's head, there were a million things that could have killed them both.

Dedman · Post by **Dedman** » Tue Feb 22, 2005 11:59 am

Lobber wrote:No, not really. You can't compare the two side by side. Too many variables are different.

Although the extra head had no body, the article indicates that it had a brain and at least some motor function. So it is possible that it was aware.

They eliminated a potential sentient life that couldnâ??t live off of life support. How is that different â?? in terms of ending a life - than aborting a fetus?

Lobber · Post by **Lobber** » Tue Feb 22, 2005 12:08 pm

A viable fetus = capable of self sustained life
A fetal parasite = incapable of self sustained life

It died as an individual long before it was born when it failed to fully develope. It is essentially a stillborn baby.

Dedman · Post by **Dedman** » Tue Feb 22, 2005 12:51 pm

Lobber wrote:A viable fetus = capable of self sustained life
A fetal parasite = incapable of self sustained life

It died as an individual long before it was born when it failed to fully develope. It is essentially a stillborn baby.

A viable fetus is only capable of self sustained life after about 20 weeks or so and that is with some major medical help. A 10 week old fetus is not even remotely capable of sustained life. Besides, capability for sustained life is not the test of sentience, and based on the information in the article, sentience was a possibility.

The extra head was alive not dead, so it wasnâ??t â??essentially a stillborn babyâ?

BigSlideHimself · Post by **BigSlideHimself** » Tue Feb 22, 2005 1:01 pm

Lobber wrote:I just had a thought, what do you suppose the reaction of the mother was seeing this freak come out of her?

Asking your mom the same question should give you some idea.

Lobber · Post by **Lobber** » Tue Feb 22, 2005 1:21 pm

Is that the best you can do?

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Tue Feb 22, 2005 1:22 pm

Lobber wrote:A viable fetus = capable of self sustained life
A fetal parasite = incapable of self sustained life

A better way to state this would be:

A normal fetus will eventually be capable of self-sustained life.

A second head will never be capable of self-sustained life, and will likely lead to the quick death of the sibling it's attached to.

This is similar to abortion when the life of both mother and child are at stake -- choosing between two deaths or one. Once they're really sure there's no way to save both, most people will reluctantly decide to save one by killing the other, rather than losing both. It's not an easy choice, but it's not one I'd hold against anyone. It's very different from elective abortion, when they're choosing between zero deaths and one and they choose one. There's a significant moral distinction based on the alternatives.

So, yes, as Dedman said, "[t]hey basically killed a potentially sentient being in order to save another one." How is that different -- in terms of ending a life -- than abortion? It's not different in terms of ending a life. It's only different in terms of the alternatives -- two deaths, or zero deaths.

"Some" might say the same could be said of a developing fetus -- but only because those "some" are intentionally erasing the key distinction.

BigSlideHimself · Post by **BigSlideHimself** » Tue Feb 22, 2005 1:26 pm

Lobber wrote:Is that the best you can do?

Yea, it is, what do you got?

Grendel · Post by **Grendel** » Tue Feb 22, 2005 1:53 pm

BigSlideHimself wrote:Why does this sort of thing always happen to egyptian births?

The culture asks for pregnacy ASAP after marriage -- so they become impatient fast and take fertility drugs. Side effect is the increased risk of this kind of problems..

WarAdvocat · Post by **WarAdvocat** » Tue Feb 22, 2005 2:42 pm

Tricord- I'm sorry where in the cited article did it say the parasitic twin had no spinal cortex? Did you find that elsewhere or did you just assume that to be the case? I spent some time googling this due to the disturbing nature of the material and no-where can I find that information.

AFAIK There was no life-threatening reason to force removal of the parasitic twin. Further, the twin was, quite possibly, sentient, self aware and conscious. Whether or not it would have reached full human potential or been massively retarded is up to question.

Given the POSSIBILITIES, not removing the parasitic twin doomed the pair to live as freaks but to me it seems that the alleviation of freakhood may have become justification for for what might amount to medical murder?

I am making a lot of assumptions here, of course as I don't know all the facts.

Again, I'm not really taking a side, I'm just saying that I'm really struck by the ethical quandary here. Arguably, as Lothar stated, a case could be made that this situation would become life threatening in short order to one or both of the pair, and that therefore a decision to save one life of the two was justified.

I know one thing: I wouldn't want to make that decision, when a month or a year down the line some method of preserving both lives could be discovered.

Tyranny · Post by **Tyranny** » Tue Feb 22, 2005 2:57 pm

You guys are funny

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Tue Feb 22, 2005 4:06 pm

WarAdvocat wrote:a case could be made that this situation would become life threatening in short order...

Yes, most likely. That's a case that needs to be made to the people in charge of the decision, though, not to a bunch of us on an internet board. Most likely, the people involved in the decision process had a pretty good idea of what sort of chances they were looking at...

I wouldn't want to make that decision, when a month or a year down the line some method of preserving both lives could be discovered.

Nobody would. It's not an easy decision, no matter how you look at it. But it's one that you sometimes have to make...

Lobber · Post by **Lobber** » Tue Feb 22, 2005 7:42 pm

BigSlideHimself wrote:
Lobber wrote:Is that the best you can do?
Yea, it is, what do you got?

I have good grammar.

Lobber · Post by **Lobber** » Tue Feb 22, 2005 7:47 pm

The "creature" would have no way of communicating. It has no lungs, and thus cannot speak. It has no limbs and thus cannot sign. It has no possible way to learn communication and thus would not be able to prove its own sentience. It could not reproduce, and that is one of the requirements of sentience. Having no genitalia nor any other internal organs, it is not a viable life form.

BigSlideHimself · Post by **BigSlideHimself** » Tue Feb 22, 2005 7:51 pm

Lobber wrote:
BigSlideHimself wrote:
Lobber wrote:Is that the best you can do?
Yea, it is, what do you got?
I have good grammar.

Is that the best you can do?

Lobber · Post by **Lobber** » Tue Feb 22, 2005 7:55 pm

BigSlideHimself wrote:
Lobber wrote:
BigSlideHimself wrote:
Lobber wrote:Is that the best you can do?
Yea, it is, what do you got?
I have good grammar.
Is that the best you can do?

You will never know.

Top Gun · Post by **Top Gun** » Tue Feb 22, 2005 8:17 pm

Lobber wrote:The "creature" would have no way of communicating. It has no lungs, and thus cannot speak. It has no limbs and thus cannot sign. It has no possible way to learn communication and thus would not be able to prove its own sentience. It could not reproduce, and that is one of the requirements of sentience. Having no genitalia nor any other internal organs, it is not a viable life form.

Um, reproductive ability has absolutely nothing to do with sentience. You would say that a normal human being who was born sterile would not be sentient? As for the communication issue, who's to say that there would be no way for it to communicate? It clearly showed emotion, in one form or another. With advances in biomedical research, who's to say how long it will be until we develop neural interfaces that allow the blind to see and the deaf to hear? Research is already quickly advancing in this field.

I'm not sure where I stand ethically on this issue. It's a very tough call to make, either way. Just one of the questions it raises is, "Should the end justify the means?" In other words, if the parasitic twin was indeed sentient, could you justify the killing of one sentient being to save another? Would it be right to choose who lives and who dies? In a way, I think that if the parasitic twin was indeed sentient and did not pose any immediate medical risk, I do not think that I would choose to kill it. If it did pose a health risk...this is the real issue. From what I remember of a morality class I took in high school, in a situation like that, one could not ethically kill one being to save the other. In that case, saving a life would not justify taking it. It's rough, though, and as I said, I haven't really made up my mind one way or another.

Lobber · Post by **Lobber** » Tue Feb 22, 2005 8:25 pm

But i think you're missing a very important point: It doesn't have its own body.

Dedman · Post by **Dedman** » Tue Feb 22, 2005 8:34 pm

Not to belabor the point Lobber, but you really do astound me with your lack of understanding of the world we live in. I want to point out a few things, then I will go away.

Lobber wrote:The "creature" would have no way of communicating. It has no lungs, and thus cannot speak. It has no limbs and thus cannot sign. It has no possible way to learn communication and thus would not be able to prove its own sentience.

One doesnâ??t need to speak or sign to be able to communicate. Helen Keller proved that one can learn to communicate quite effectively under the most arduous of circumstances.

Lobber wrote:It could not reproduce, and that is one of the requirements of sentience. .

senâ?¢tient
adj.
1. Having sense perception; conscious.
2. Experiencing sensation or feeling.

Please tell me where the ability to reproduce has anything to do with the ability to perceive ones surroundings. Are you suggesting that people that are born with reproductive abnormalities that make reproduction impossible are not sentient?

Lobber wrote:Having no genitalia nor any other internal organs, it is not a viable life form.

I would certainly call the brain an â??internal organâ?

Lobber · Post by **Lobber** » Tue Feb 22, 2005 8:56 pm

Then you missed a very important episode of Star Trek the Next Generation where they had Data on trial to see if he was sentient.

Top Gun · Post by **Top Gun** » Tue Feb 22, 2005 11:02 pm

Lobber wrote:Then you missed a very important episode of Star Trek the Next Generation where they had Data on trial to see if he was sentient.

Just keep on digging that hole for yourself...