Agents of Will, Part 1

Agents of Will, Part 1

The question of the day concerns decisions around a pair of Siamese twins.

Question One: Was this a correct and just decision? Is it better to have one live at the sacrifice of the other than have both the twins die?

Question Two: Was it right for the state to take this decision away from the jurisdiction of the parents?

Question Three: What is the main criteria to use in answering question one?

Well, I guess it’s about time we had a tough situation to apply the principles of the Middle Way toward.

This is one of the few times that my answers will run contrary to the majority here, but if you find you cannot harmonize with me I hope you will be tolerant and realize that there are many angles of vision from this physical plane. But the truth can always be accessed by the soul and I hope to write in harmony with that soul here.

First let me comment the question as to why the physical existence seemed to be the focal consideration.

The answer is quite simple. We live in a physical world and even though there are many non physical considerations available, there are also many physical ones.

If you go to the store to buy bread it is first a physical consideration to even decide to buy food. Then you have another physical consideration as to which brand you buy.

If any one of us finds ourselves in a situation where he is about to have a car wreck we all take this physical situation into consideration in order to save our skins. I will certainly admit that, in such an emergency situation, I would act completely on a physical level in order to save myself. Now some may claim otherwise for themselves, but I would be prone to believe that major illusion would be involved if one does not believe he would react on a physical level in crisis situations.

Even so, many situations occur in life where a physical action or non action must be taken. I’ve presented a situation and some feel they can avoid making a decision by proxy here as if any decision were wrong or all decisions are right, but talking about something like this in theory is much different than actually being in a tough situation like this. The parents who found themselves in this awkward situation had no recourse, but to take a stand of either saving a life or letting it go. Without physical considerations they would have not cared, for as far as the soul goes nothing can harm it, so if care and love is to be demonstrated toward such children it must be done upon the physical plane.

First let me clarify the situation. The doctors give the children only a few months to live. A reader pointed out that doctors are often wrong. This is true. Overall, I do not have a lot of faith in doctors as far as the treatment of disease goes. In fact, I have not had a doctor for many years as stated in the immortal. But we have to look at both sides of the equation to see the truth, even with doctors. As far as this type of diagnosis and application of ability through surgery this type of situation is much more geared to beneficial use of their training and ability. In this type of situation their prognosis is often accurate.

If the best doctors say that these babies will only live a short time in their current situation I would have little reason to doubt this. They could be wrong but I would give them the benefit of the doubt here.

When specialists say they can separate such twins or save the life of one I have found from my following such news items that they have been quite accurate in their assessments.

So let us suppose that the probability is that the doctors are right here – that the only way to save a life is to operate and give the essential body parts to the stronger allowing it to live while the other will die. Should the doctors proceed?

Let us look at the pros and cons if they proceed.

THE PROS

(1) One life would be saved and have the opportunity to live a fairly normal life on the physical plane.

(2) The twin that would die from the operation would suffer a painless death and return to the storehouse of souls where only blissful existence would be experienced until its next incarnation.

(3) The operation would give the doctors valuable experience that may aid them in saving future lives.

THE CONS

??? I can’t think of any. Without the operation both would die.

Therefore, my vote would be to proceed with the operation and give one soul the opportunity for renewed growth on the physical plane. If it is important for the other to have similar experience then it will not be long before the entity is born again.

Objection: Is this not playing God?

Answer: Yes, but we should play God for we are reflections of God with the fullness of God within us. How can we regain our inheritance if we do not play the part??? If we do not play the roll of Gods as Christ suggested then we must play at being something less than our true reality. Should we play at being animals instead?

Keep in mind that some of the ingredients of playing God are justice, mercy, love, intelligence and good judgment.

Objection: Maybe it was the will of God that the twins just stay here for a few months and then die?

To me that is like saying that maybe it is the will of God that my kid not be given any food because God isn’t her feeding him. Wouldn’t we all think that it is ridiculous to withhold food from our kids and let then starve to death?

What is the difference between that and withholding medical assistance from the one child who can live because you see it as God’s will that he die?

Nothing.

If your child falls and breaks a leg will you let the bones stay out of place for the rest of his life thinking that it’s God’s will because he fell and the fall must be God’s will?

No no no! All of us would rush the kid to the hospital and get the leg set without delving first into obscure philosophy.

If we therefore have two children and are given a chance to save one is not God’s will the same as your will as taught in the Course in Miracles:

“As You are One, so am I one with You. And this I chose in my creation, where my will became forever one with Yours. That choice was made for all eternity. It cannot change, and be in opposition to itself. Father, my will is Yours.”

The fact that God’s will and our own is one does not mean that every decision we make is a wise one but one thing it does mean is that it is God’s will that we be forever free to exercise will and make our own decisions. Therefore, to not save a life because of acquiescence to God’s will is illusion. If you will to save a life then God wills to save the life. If one wills to let both children die then you are also incorporating God’s will that you be free to choose.

As agents of God’s will our will as a whole is toward a dominating good thus we all seek to improve our conditions with each decision we make and when we error and discover the error we through the Will of God seek to correct the error.

Thus to not help one of the children live because of some perceived will of God is illusion for the will of God is in us. If we will the child to live and have power to give it life then the will of God has become manifest. Or are we saying that the will of God is so weak that it is continually frustrated?

The will of God is not a consideration here because no decision can go contrary to that will because God’s Will is in all decision.

Objection: Maybe this is a situation especially geared to paying off karma for the twins and we should just leave them alone and let them die.

Answer: It is not for us to judge the karma of another, unless a revelation is given in the matter. If we so attempt there is no sure way of knowing if we are correct or not without such a revelation.

Whether they live or die their karma will be worked out. If we let the one child die because we think it is his karma we are making a judgment that does not belong to us. On the other hand, if we save a life with no thought of karma, but of service then we have found the Middle Way.

Speaking of those who seek to be agents of karma Jesus said:

“Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!” Matt 18:7

I would say that it would be an offense to let both children die because “it is their karma.” Offenses indeed do come as was taught by the Master, for many children do die in their youth, but such events should only happen after we have done all we can do to bring a positive outcome.

Objection: It would be wrong to sacrifice one child to save another.

Answer: There is no sacrifice for the child would die anyway and if by a miracle they both live, because of their disability, they would suffer a fate worse than death.

More on this later.

Sept 24, 2000

Copyright by J J Dewey

Index for Older Archives

Index for Recent Posts

Easy Access to All the Writings

Register at Freeread Here

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.