Joined: Wed 04-07-2004 10:21AM Posts: 351 Location: Down the hall
Source: Fidelity
My question would be: Could the other baby (head, whatever. Moot point now) understand? Did she have a brain of her own or did she just share the brain of the remaining twin? She could smile and blink (I know, blinking is involuntary and controled by the mudula oblongata). Could she communicate or understand anything else? Without knowing more of the story, there could be some ethical issues here.
_________________ "Oh, you're from Europe? Which part? The one whose butt we saved, or the one whose butt we kicked?"
i had to write an opinion on a case like that in hs, man that was hard. let one die, or let the both die.... i wouldnt have been able to be the doc on that
EDIT: one of the multitude of reasons i went into engr
_________________ The solution of this problem is trivial and is left as an exercise for the reader.
Joined: Mon 09-01-2003 6:23PM Posts: 2880 Location: Either at the source below, or in 859 TJ south
Source: Wilson Library
The skull was fused together; not the brain.
I didn't see it say shit about blinking or anything like that. They shared part of their skull and blood vessles. The extra head didn't have lungs or anything like that, therefore speaking would be impossible. I don't think that the extra head was living, but was being kept alive by the oxygenated blood from the dominant twin. I think that it was kept "fresh" by the blood, but no sign of any sort of spark was there.
Wow, did I just say spark? Too much Beast Wars for me
_________________ The nicest asshole you probably wish you had never met.
Remember, Jesus loves you...but he doesn't put out.
I would think if the spare head was blinking that it proably contained some sort of a functional brain. But without lungs the head would have been incapable of speech or communication and would be soley dependent on the other child. I'd say removing it was justified if it compromised the safety of both, it is better to let one live than have both die.
true, but the sticky part is the question if the other one is alive. if so, then killing it is murder. the whole thing is a morally gray area that im not prepared to delve into
_________________ The solution of this problem is trivial and is left as an exercise for the reader.
true, but the sticky part is the question if the other one is alive. if so, then killing it is murder. the whole thing is a morally gray area that im not prepared to delve into
Maybe so, but killing one to save one is morally better than having one die. It is a very grey area IMO.
true, but the sticky part is the question if the other one is alive. if so, then killing it is murder. the whole thing is a morally gray area that im not prepared to delve into
Maybe so, but killing one to save one is morally better than having one die. It is a very grey area IMO.
i concur, to an extent, but i dont want to have that on my concience, the killing of a baby. im just very sentimental towards them (i have a 3yr old bro, a 6yr old bro, and an 8 yr old bro that i helped raise from infants) so i wouldnt want to even be in on that descision
_________________ The solution of this problem is trivial and is left as an exercise for the reader.
_________________ "Clear? Huh! Why a four-year-old child could understand this report! ... Run out and find me a four-year-old child. I can't make head or tail out of it." - Rufus T. Firefly, Duck Soup
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
