2000-9-25 10:52:00
The question of the day concerns decisions about whether a pair of Siamese twins should live or die which was brought up in an earlier post. [See article entitled, "Wisdom Of Solomon."]
The first question is:
Was this a correct and just decision? Is it better to have one live at the sacrifice of the other rather than have both the twins die?
The second question is:
Was it right for the state to take this decision away from the jurisdiction of the parents?
The third question is:
What is the main criterion 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 on the list, 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 on Paul's question wherein he asks, why is the physical existence apparently 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 decide to buy food. Then you have another physical consideration, which brand do 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 someone does not believe he would react on a physical level in crisis situations.
Even so, many situations occur in life where a choice between a physical action and non-action must be taken. I've presented a situation with the twins where a choice must be made. Some feel they can avoid making a decision 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 such a tough situation. 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 not have cared, 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. Xavier points 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. But we have to look at both sides of the equation to see the truth, even with doctors.
I believe in this situation the surgeon's skill and diagnosis is geared to a beneficial use of their training and ability. Their prognosis would likely be accurate. If the best doctors say that these babies will live only a short time conjoined, I would have little reason to doubt this. They could be wrong, but I would give them the benefit of the doubt. When specialists say they can separate such twins or save the life of one, I have found from my following it in the news, that they have been quite accurate in their assessments.
So let us suppose that the probability is that the doctors are right -- 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's look at the pros and cons if they proceed and make a judgment.
The pros are: One life would be saved and have the opportunity to live a fairly normal life on the physical plane; 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; and the operation would give the doctors valuable experience that may aid them in saving future lives.
The cons are: hmmm, I can't think of any cons. 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 a similar experience, then it will not be long before he is born again.
Some may object saying, "Isn't this playing God?" I would answer yes, but we should play God. 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 role of God 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 rules of playing God are justice, mercy, love, intelligence, and good judgment.
Still others might object saying, 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 here feeding him. Wouldn't we all think that it is ridiculous to withhold food from our kids and let them starve to death? What is the difference between that and withholding medical assistance from the one child that 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 their fall must be God's Will? No, no, and 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, isn't God's Will your will as taught in "A Course in Miracles"? (ACIM)
"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." (ACIM, Lesson 329)
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 are forever free to exercise our will and make our own decisions. 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 that life also. If you will to let both children die, you are still incorporating God's Will by the fact you are free to choose.
As agents of God's Will, our will, as a whole, is toward a dominating good. We all seek to improve our conditions with each decision we make. When we err 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; 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 argument about doing the Will of God is not a consideration here because no decision can go contrary to that Will. We have shown God's Will is in all decisions either through wise choices, or through using our agency to choose.
Another objection raised might be that this is a situation especially geared to paying off Karma for the twins, and we should just leave them alone and let them die. My answer would be it is not for us to judge the Karma of another, unless a revelation is given in the matter. 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, many children do die in their youth, but such events should only happen after we have done all we can do to bring about a positive outcome.
Yet another might object saying, it would be wrong to sacrifice one child to save another. I would counter there is no sacrifice. The child would die anyway, and if by a miracle they both live, they suffer a fate worse than death.
I am out of time tonight. I will next comment on the next two questions and then apply this situation to the Midway Point.
Copyright © 2000 by J.J. Dewey, All Rights Reserved