Conjoined Twins In Geek Love Essay

“I almost had a boyfriend, once. Elly would have let me. She thought it was O.K She shut down whenever I talked to him. Whenever he came around, shed cut her voltage way back and stayed quiet. She wanted me to go ahead and love” (Dunn 280). This is just part of the entangled life of conjoined twins Katherine Dunn describes in her novel Geek Love. Conjoined twins live every second of their lives as one, which immediately raises question about not just intimacy, but more centrally identity and personhood. Most importantly for thought for the life of conjoined twins is the argument around separation. Current science and mainstream thinking categorizes conjoined twins as their own individuals, because primarily their separate cognitive abilities,

medical interruption, and status quo. The common claim is that their bodies must be separated when possible in order to allow for the most fulfilling life. However, conjoined twins do not need to be separated surgically to achieve this, they can and often do live divided and personal lives without the intervention of medicine.
Firstly, it is important to understand precisely what is a conjoined twin. The renowned Mayo Clinic explains conjoined twins as, “twin babies that are born physically connected to each other….[the twins] develop when an early embryo partially separates to form two individuals” (Mayo Clinic). Conjoined twins can also be further classified into several groups dependent upon the nature of their conjointment (Mayo Clinic). The type of conjointment also depends if the twins are eligible for separation, however, most conjoined twins do not survive infancy (Mayo Clinic). Because most twins do not not survive and the rarity of conjoined twins’ births, still much is unknown about them, but it’s important to recognize that conjoined twins it refers to a diverse and complicated group. This in mind for the scope of this paper, when referring to conjoined twins, it refers to conjoined twins with the medical possibility of separation and the realistic prospect of survival, which only represents a minority of all conjoined twin.
Even with limited information and a small sample size, medicine still has synthesized a reactions and procedure for conjoined twins, namely conjoined twins are unideal but if possible separation is ideal. As a medical doctor form India puts it, “Conjointment is seen as a medical condition that requires treatment, and the indicated treatment is invasive surgery to complete the process of splitting that was halted in the womb” (Kapoor 71). Leigh Atkinson, a bioethicist, also agrees with this assertion stating, “Medical experts tend to make the assumption that separation is in the best interests of each child” (Quigley 5). Another bioethicist points out that, “Surgeons who routinely favor the separation of conjoined twins speak of ‘freeing them from one another” (Quigley 5). In fact, thanks to the increasing capabilities of technology, Kapoor presses that terminating pregnancies is also increasingly possible, “The diagnosis of conjoined twins can frequently be made at midpregnancy using sonography, which allows the parents to decide whether or not to continue the pregnancy”(Kapoor 71). Further, the anatomical and physiological issues with conjoined twins and the difficulty that accompanies having them, “further complicates decisions about whether or not to continue pregnancy” (Kapoor 71). Medicine ultimately sees conjoined twins as two people mutated into one only to needing correction through surgery.
Not only does the medical world view conjoined twins as two bodies needed to be separated, but so does mainstream society. Just through an informal news search of conjoined twins headlines read, “Texas Twins Celebrate One Year Separation,” and “Formerly Conjoined Twins Give Back to Hospital for Holidays” (ABCNews). These headlines highlight the media and societies conception that the twins should be separate when possible. Society also gives us clues about its view of these twins, by giving different names signals to others that they are separate people in one body. According to disability research Michael Barilan, conjoined twins are bound by four assumption made by society-
”1. Conjoined twins are two people
2. each twin wishes to survive regardless of his or her bodily form
3. All things being equal, each twins prefers a separate physical survival rather than one of continuous sharing of physical body,
4. only medicine can separate conjoined twins; therefore, conjointment is a medical challenge” (Barilan 28).
The current model is simply summarized as “conjoined twins are two persons, not one, no matter how much they are conjoined” (Overall 75). The conventional logic here is that since they are viewed as two people with one body, then separation is the preferred state.
Although this stance is ingrained in society, the media and the medical system, it is not completely representative of the lives of conjoined twins. Firstly, as Ethicist Chirstine Overall elicits, “surgical separation often results in the death or severe disability of one or both twins, the question whether separation is justified for any given pair of conjoined twins is inevitably controversial” (Overall 71). Moreover, as explained early, many conjoined twins cannot be separated at all. These facts suggest that intervention may be more damaging than a life of two bodies in one. Additionally, an argument can be made that the conjoined are the same body and separated them is therefore an assault of unjust and unwarranted mutilation. Since conjoined twins are a single fertilized egg that failed to split after 16 days (the time when doctors and ethicists consider the baby to individualized in that splitting can no longer occur), biologically they are one (Rose 351). Thus an act of separation could be considered an attack.
Whether or not considering the separation of twins as unjust or not, does separation necessarily have to be delivering “freedom,” can twins live capable and respectable lives contrary to popular culture and medicine?

According to a study about conjoined twins, “they develop distinct personalities and express different levels of behavior and intelligence” (Singhal 146). This illustrates the twins’ differentiation and ability to demonstrate a sense of identity even though they are conjoined. Another experiment showed, “that sometimes one half of the brain is oblivious to the activities going on in the other half” (source). Conjoined twins can be separate minds, separate consciousnesses, and separate identities, yet still are conjoined in one body. These facts may refute the fact that conjoined twins cannot live separate lives in a conjoined body. Even something as personal as intimacy seen in Dunn’s Geek Love can be separated out. A study explored Dunn’s concept- “When asked about being tied to a twin during lovemaking, conjoined twins usually answer that they learn how ‘‘not to be there…Being conjoined twins is a unique experience indeed” (Mannix). As with many other disabilities, as “Alice Dreger, a medical historian whose goal is justice for conjoined twins, says, ‘Most people who are conjoined, given the opportunity to do so, accept and embrace a life of two minds in one packaging of skin” (Dreger 43). Dreger continues, “Conjoinment becomes so essential to these twins—to their sense of who they are—that they cannot readily conceive of living in a different mode” (Dreger 47). This reality is so much true, that “ong-living conjoined twins, when faced with death, refused the option of separation” (Singhal 146). Conjoined twins exist as independent people even if they share one body despite what the populace

believes.
The existence of conjoined twins escapes most people’s conception because people believe there must be a one-to-one ration of body to person. Researches term this as a ‘singleton’ model meaning you are the sole authority over your own body, you do not live in a partnership with anybody else (Overall 70). Barilan claims that allowing more than one person per body idea leads to unacceptable conclusion such as allowing those with Multiple Personality Disorder to be considered multiple person and “curing” them would entail killing a person (Barilan 35). But this statement makes several assumptions, first, and similar to conjoined twin separation, “curing” those with MPD may be damaging and in fact often impossible. Second, this assumes that allowing for more then one person to body is an impossibility, which clearly conjoined twins refute. Thirdly, this assumes there is no malleability within personality. Each person and their personality changes dramatically and often throughout their life, someone with MPD could be considered someone with a different personality in a much shorty time frame than typical, either way everybody expresses different personalities in the same body, therefore a MPD person should not be considered a revocation of a “one-person-one-body” conception.
Still, others argue that and inherent quality of personhood “involves the idea of ownership of, rights to, and authority over one’s various bodily parts” (Overall 77). If this is personhood, then a conjoined twin may be denied true personhood by being conjoined and separation is justifiable. However, these qualities are not linked solely with the body. For example, if someone loses their limbs or loses felling or control of a limb one day they wouldn’t be any less a person even though they no longer have ownership over their body parts. Additionally, the rights and authority to your own body are non-existent as baby and child. Is this to say that baby and children lack personhood? Such a statement probably sounds blasphemous to parents. Even more narrow peoples body, and thus their authority over them, are tied to other decisions people make. If someone decided to smoke or pollute the air you may develop lung disease despite a right held for your body. Or if a contagious disease is spread to you by other people’s lack of cleanliness your body faces the consequences of it. Are these statements to entail that the lack of complete authority of your body means we all lack personhood? Ownership, rights, and authority to your body do not define personhood for non-conjoined people so neither should they for conjoined twins. Consequently, conjoined twins are not denied and such personhood by the nature of being conjoined.
In conclusion, medicine, the media and society supplants the idea that conjoined twins are two people trapped in one body that must be separated in order to achieve a normal life. However, this model is neglectful of conjoined twins’ capabilities to live a fully fulfilling life. Conjoined twins are two separate people that happen to share the same body, and are subject to the limitations that non-conjoined people equally face. Furthermore, unnecessary separation maybe mental and physically detrimental for one or both twins. Categorically, the separation is harmful, close-minded, and denies the proven ability of conjoined twins.