SciTech

Separated At Birth, But Why?

novy.

Posted to SciTech on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 08:27:20 AM EST (promoted by port1080). RSS.

On 9 October 1968, twin girls were born in New York and put up for adoption. As part of some study being conducted by "a leading US child psychologist with the co-operation of prestigious New York adoption agency Louise Wise Services ... to discover how identical twins would react to being raised in different family backgrounds", they were placed in separate families and never told about one another.

In 2003, one of these girls decided to find out more about circumstances of her birth and found out about her twin. She made arrangements to meet her, and they have become very close. So close that they cooperated in writing "Identical Strangers", their memoirs as sisters separated and then reunited.

They discovered that they had been dropped from that twins study very early on, and then they decided to confront Dr. Peter Neubauer about what had happened to them. At first he wouldn't speak to them, but later agreed to meet. One twin commented,

"It was quite surreal ... we were his kind of 'lab rats' coming back to see the great doctor. We had all these questions for him. But he was very quick to turn the tables and it was clear that he was seeing this as an opportunity to continue his study. He wanted to see how we turned out and question us about our development... I really was hoping that he would take responsibility for what he had done so many years ago. He refuses to be open to the possibility that they were wrong. No matter what, we can't make up for the 35 years that we lost. We are different people because of being separated."
Not only did Dr. Neubauer refuse to consider any possibility that what he had done was morally wrong or answer any of their questions, but as it turned out all records of that experiment have been sealed until 2066, presumably after both they and Neubauer have died. They have concluded that his experiment was about "nature versus nurture" and about "hereditariness of mental illness" (their birth mother spent part of her life in psychiatric care).

But who authorises these sorts of experiments on innocent people? Who seals relevant documents and enforces their secret status? Were these twins victimised by another previously undisclosed unethical secret CIA experiment?  What would happen if they sued to unseal those records? What should happen? How many other similar experiments may be ongoing even now? Can anything be done to stop them?

Tags: edited by Port1080, written by novy, science, twins, ethics (all tags)

This story: 7 comments (2 from subqueue)
Post a Comment
1

Re: Separated At Birth, But Why?

joshv.

Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 09:16:28 AM EST

4.00 (interesting, astute)

So two kids were given perfectly acceptable and adequate adoptive families and somehow this is a bad thing?  Children are split up all of the time in adoption.  It's sometimes easier to find two adoptive families looking for one child, than it is to find one family looking for two.  If as a side effect of such an adoption, the state can benefit from the excellent research opportunity represented by twins separated at birth - why not?

2

^ 1

Re: Separated At Birth, But Why?

TonedEff.

Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 09:58:36 AM EST

none

But the doctor didn't gain any excellent research as a result of the separation of these two.  They were dropped from the study.  But, I sort of agree with you that the twins are whining over what exactly?  Why should they be so hypercritical of the doctor; their mother put them up for adoption and, as you say, once the state took over any ability to insure they both were adopted by the same family ended.

So, they were separated and didn't come to find out the truth until much later.  That's the way the adoption game was played back in the 20th century.  This business of orphans being able to find out information about their birth parents is only a recent phenomenon.  Back then, the records were sealed and nobody had a right to find out anything about birth parents.  Perhaps part of the loosening up on restrictions has to do with a newfound concern for human rights and perhaps part of it is due to concern over hereditary diseases, whatever, now people like the twins have a right to know.

But they don't have a right to undo history.  They don't really have a right to force any information out of the doctor.  What they do have is the right to reunite and share their own histories and become sisters again.  They were lucky to have been adopted by two families who were loving, caring and supportive.  They should be grateful for the way life turned out for them after it dealt them a short hand at birth.

 

3

^ 1

Re: Separated At Birth, But Why?

Degee.

Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 10:55:56 AM EST

none

So do you think the state doesn't need to ask permission of the individual (in this case the biological mother) no matter how well intentioned their purposes? Would you qualify that if possible? For example, do you believe we all should be default organ donors, without signing  a card? How about random residential searches for security due to terrorist alerts ie martial law?

Am I a great person? Hell no - by most metrics I'm pretty much an asshole. -TSlothrop

4

^ 3

Re: Separated At Birth, But Why?

joshv.

Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 12:57:32 PM EST

none

When you place a child up for adoption, you are entrusting the best interest of the child to the state.  You shouldn't be able to put any preconditions on the adoptive parents.  If you want to direct the future course of the child's life, don't give it up.

I will admit that the state did perform a balancing act here.  They benefited from a positive research opportunity - in the interest of the public good, while risking a more negative outcome for the children involved.  But given that children are often split up to increase the odds of adoption, that adoption is infinitely preferable to foster care, and that there is little compelling evidence that a child raised with it's identical twin is any more happy or healthy than a child raised with unrelated adoptive siblings, there was little possible downside to the decision the state made in this instance.

As for organ donation and unconstitutional searches, I fail to see the relevance.

6

^ 4

But Why?

Shy Elf.

Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 05:56:57 PM EST

4.00 (astute)

The point is that they were separated not because it was in their interest, but because the state allowed research to take priority over the best interests of the children.  This is clearly unethical.  It may sometimes be in the best interests of the children to be separated when this helps them find foster families faster, but this is not why they were separated here.

On the scale of atrocities, however, this has to come in towards the very bottom.

5

^ 4

Re: Separated At Birth, But Why?

Degee.

Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 04:17:47 PM EST

none

My point was to ask you how far you would go with your contention that it is ok, on balance, for the state to make well-intentioned decisions without permission of individuals.

 In this case the individuals are the twins or, due to their youth, whomever is their proxy . * The decision is whether to conduct research for the good of society.

Universal organ donation and unconstitutional searches are just more extreme examples of the same: the state  making well-intentioned decisions without permission of individuals.

*(AFAIK,  the state itself is  mandated, and ONLY mandated, to make decisions on how to place them including details of separate vs double adoption vs foster care. However these details are not relevant to the basic question.)

Am I a great person? Hell no - by most metrics I'm pretty much an asshole. -TSlothrop

7

Think This Is Okay?

thefadd.

Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 06:29:27 PM EST

none

What do you think about this.

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

This story: 7 comments (2 from subqueue)
Post a Comment