Our group's final solution is to separate the twins immediately.
We chose this solution because all scientific evidence available and logic points to this as the best solution. Our reaons will be listed below, with the relevance references being found in the posts 'Possible Paths to Take' and 'On the Side of the Hospital' below.
- The twins have an 80 percent chance of dying if they are not separated.
- Jodie is very likely to survive the operation, as her vital organs are well developed.
- Such a solution goes against the parents' religious belief, but the twins' health is a matter of science and not religion. Hence, the decision should be made on the basis of science - which indicates it is better to separate the twins to save one rather than to lose two.
- The doctors have had years of training in medical school and experience in the hospital, and are hence far better equipped than the parents to make such a decision, which will likely decide if the twins (or at least Jodie) live or die.
- The supernatural claims of religion have never been proven - refer to the 2006 Havard Prayer Study, for example - and religion hence has no bearing in the matters of science.
- The religious beliefs of the parents are in this case likely to harm their children and hence should be overriden.
- The hospital should try to save as many lives as possible. If the operation does not go through, the twins are likely to die. If the operation goes through, Jodie is likely to survive. It is therefore best to go through with the operation so that at least one of the twins can be saved.
Posted by Su Gi.
Sunday, June 21, 2009
Possible Paths to Take - by Su Gi
There are a number of solutions for this case, all with their own consequences:
1) Going ahead with the separation (which occurred). Based on the scientific evidence available - numerous X-rays and scans of the twins were taken to gain as much information as possible1 - this would be the best option for the twins, as both twins had a 80% chance of dying within 6 months if not separated, but Jodie was likely to survive if they were separated.2
However, the consequences are that the parents' religious beliefs are disregarded and religious and pro-life groups riled. For example, a spokesman for Pro-Life Alliance stated that "these are very sad times for English law and English medicine".3 Such groups would also argue that the case sets a precedent for British courts to override sensitive decisions by parents and their rights, taking away their freedom.
2) Not separating the twins. This goes against the scientific evidence available, but the parents' wishes and religious beliefs would be respected.
The consequences are that this case is likely to influence further such cases; judges are more likely to rule in the future that the decisions of parents must be respected, even if their decisions are likely to put their children in more danger. Other groups are likely to argue that religion is becoming more invasive and harmful, as lives are allowed by the courts to be put in danger just for the sake of respecting religious beliefs.
3) Not going ahead with the separation just yet, but instant constantly monitoring the health of the twins. The parents would be required to stay in Britain for 6 or so more months and bring the twins for constant (e.g. weekly) check-ups. If the condition of the twins deteriorates, they would be separated. The British government would partly subsidize the cost of their stay should the parents be financially strapped.
The consequences are that both sides are likely to be somewhat mollified. The parents would feel that their wishes have been, at least partly, respected, and those supporting the hospital would recognize that the courts have not completely thrown scientific evidence out of the window. However, should separation have to occur, religious groups are likely to protest, stating that "God works in mysterious ways" and that the separation would be premature. Also, should the parents have to be subsidized, British taxpayers are likely to grumble that it is money spent (or wasted) on people who are not even citizens of the country.
4) Allowing the parents to hire their own relgious healers, who could help to raise funds for the parents through their supporters. However, should the twins' condition worsen, separation would be mandatory.
The consequences are that the religious side is likely to have little issue with this decision, except for the mandatory separation in the worst-case scenario. Pro-Science groups are likely to protest that the effectiveness of religious healers has not been scientifically proven and that such a decision would only be detrimental to the twins.
Posted by Su Gi.
Footnotes:
1: Telegraph, November 7, 2000. Article
2: The New York Times, November 7, 2000. Article
3: The Independent, November 6, 2000. Article
1) Going ahead with the separation (which occurred). Based on the scientific evidence available - numerous X-rays and scans of the twins were taken to gain as much information as possible1 - this would be the best option for the twins, as both twins had a 80% chance of dying within 6 months if not separated, but Jodie was likely to survive if they were separated.2
However, the consequences are that the parents' religious beliefs are disregarded and religious and pro-life groups riled. For example, a spokesman for Pro-Life Alliance stated that "these are very sad times for English law and English medicine".3 Such groups would also argue that the case sets a precedent for British courts to override sensitive decisions by parents and their rights, taking away their freedom.
2) Not separating the twins. This goes against the scientific evidence available, but the parents' wishes and religious beliefs would be respected.
The consequences are that this case is likely to influence further such cases; judges are more likely to rule in the future that the decisions of parents must be respected, even if their decisions are likely to put their children in more danger. Other groups are likely to argue that religion is becoming more invasive and harmful, as lives are allowed by the courts to be put in danger just for the sake of respecting religious beliefs.
3) Not going ahead with the separation just yet, but instant constantly monitoring the health of the twins. The parents would be required to stay in Britain for 6 or so more months and bring the twins for constant (e.g. weekly) check-ups. If the condition of the twins deteriorates, they would be separated. The British government would partly subsidize the cost of their stay should the parents be financially strapped.
The consequences are that both sides are likely to be somewhat mollified. The parents would feel that their wishes have been, at least partly, respected, and those supporting the hospital would recognize that the courts have not completely thrown scientific evidence out of the window. However, should separation have to occur, religious groups are likely to protest, stating that "God works in mysterious ways" and that the separation would be premature. Also, should the parents have to be subsidized, British taxpayers are likely to grumble that it is money spent (or wasted) on people who are not even citizens of the country.
4) Allowing the parents to hire their own relgious healers, who could help to raise funds for the parents through their supporters. However, should the twins' condition worsen, separation would be mandatory.
The consequences are that the religious side is likely to have little issue with this decision, except for the mandatory separation in the worst-case scenario. Pro-Science groups are likely to protest that the effectiveness of religious healers has not been scientifically proven and that such a decision would only be detrimental to the twins.
Posted by Su Gi.
Footnotes:
1: Telegraph, November 7, 2000. Article
2: The New York Times, November 7, 2000. Article
3: The Independent, November 6, 2000. Article
Our Group's Stand - by Ying Teng
In a normal foetus, only one sperm fuses with an egg. In the case of identical twins, however, an anomaly occurs, causing the embryo to separate. When the division of the developing zygote into 2 embryos occurs, 99% of cases occur within 8 days of fertilization. However, if the division of the zygote occurs later than the 8 days, then conjoined twins are usually the result.
Only a quarter of the conjoined twins in the world survive on their first day after birth. Having shared organs, most of the time, only one of the twins would be able to survive after surgery – the one who has most of the organs and is stronger. For Mary and Jodie, having a shared heart and lungs means that only one would be able to survive after surgery. In this case, since the heart and lungs are formed in Jodie’s body, it already increases the chances of survival for Jodie. However, in many other conjoined twins, doctors have to decide which organ should belong to which twin.
Life, indeed, when created, should not be severed. Nevertheless, Mary, being the weaker twin, is totally dependent on her sister Jodie for blood and oxygen. Without surgery, there is an 80% chance that both would die, whereas with surgery, Jodie has a high chance of survival while Mary would have to be sacrificed. Even though some may argue that they should wait and “let God decide”, it is essential to consider the perspective of the twins, and consider removing one to save the other.
Without separation through surgery, the twins would need to depend on each other for survival. Without one, the other dies as well, unless they are surgically removed after the death of one of the twins. In some cases of conjoined twins, if vital organs were not shared, surgery could separate the twins easily. However, such as for Mary and Jodie, surgery would seal the fate of the weaker twin.
Though in the eyes of law, all life are equal and one does not outweigh the other, Mary, being the parasitic twin, needs to be sacrificed to save Jodie. Mary lives on borrowed time and is incapable of independent survival. Her birth itself has already sealed her fate. If one can die to save the other, why let both die? Jodie, having undergone surgery, could be of normal intelligence and be able to walk, have children and enjoy an average life expectancy.
Ethnically, it is inhumane to murder one of the twins, but also, morally, it is inhumane to not save at least one of the twins and let both die.
Posted by Ying Teng.
Only a quarter of the conjoined twins in the world survive on their first day after birth. Having shared organs, most of the time, only one of the twins would be able to survive after surgery – the one who has most of the organs and is stronger. For Mary and Jodie, having a shared heart and lungs means that only one would be able to survive after surgery. In this case, since the heart and lungs are formed in Jodie’s body, it already increases the chances of survival for Jodie. However, in many other conjoined twins, doctors have to decide which organ should belong to which twin.
Life, indeed, when created, should not be severed. Nevertheless, Mary, being the weaker twin, is totally dependent on her sister Jodie for blood and oxygen. Without surgery, there is an 80% chance that both would die, whereas with surgery, Jodie has a high chance of survival while Mary would have to be sacrificed. Even though some may argue that they should wait and “let God decide”, it is essential to consider the perspective of the twins, and consider removing one to save the other.
Without separation through surgery, the twins would need to depend on each other for survival. Without one, the other dies as well, unless they are surgically removed after the death of one of the twins. In some cases of conjoined twins, if vital organs were not shared, surgery could separate the twins easily. However, such as for Mary and Jodie, surgery would seal the fate of the weaker twin.
Though in the eyes of law, all life are equal and one does not outweigh the other, Mary, being the parasitic twin, needs to be sacrificed to save Jodie. Mary lives on borrowed time and is incapable of independent survival. Her birth itself has already sealed her fate. If one can die to save the other, why let both die? Jodie, having undergone surgery, could be of normal intelligence and be able to walk, have children and enjoy an average life expectancy.
Ethnically, it is inhumane to murder one of the twins, but also, morally, it is inhumane to not save at least one of the twins and let both die.
Posted by Ying Teng.
The Case of the Parents - by Brenda
Parents Michaelangelo and Rina Attard travelled to the United Kingdom from the island of Gozo, part of Malta, for the birth of their conjoined twins. Their daughters, Jodie and Mary, were born at Manchester's St Mary's Hospital on 8 August 2000, joined at the pelvis with a fused spine.
At birth, Jodie was active and breathing voluntarily with a good heart and chest movement and moving all four limbs. In Mary's case, there was a minimal response from the cardiopulmonary system before it failed. The medical team then realised that Mary's heart and lungs were so poorly developed that she was totally dependent on Jodie for oxygen and blood circulation. According to the doctors, the strain would give Jodie heart failure and kill both the daughters in three to six months.
The doctors then proposed an operation to separate the twins. The operation would cause Mary's immediate death, but Jodie was expected to have a good chance of surviving, and a reasonable chance, after further operations, of a full, healthy life.
The parents were shocked at their proposal and refused our consent to the operation. They could not possibly agree to any surgery being undertaken that would kill one of their daughters. Their daughters were equal in their eyes and in their love. As Roman Catholics, they felt that it was wrong to do evil - sanctioning the death of a child - even though it could result in good. In their opinion, everyone had a right to live and they could not begin to contemplate that one of their children should die to enable the other to survive.
The parents had faith in God, and were quite happy for God's will to decide what happens. They sincerely believed that it was God's will that their daughters be born the way they are and that they should be left to live their lives joined together as they are for so long as God in his mercy should ordain it.
Besides, as Jodie might be permanently brain damaged should the separation be successfully carried out, the parents felt that this would make it almost impossible to rear her on their home island of Gozo because the islanders would regard her as punishment for some earlier sin.
Regardless of the parent’s objections, the doctors proceeded on to seek permission from the High Court to authorise the separation of their daughters against their wishes. Following a prolonged legal battle and despite a determined effort by pro-life campaigners, the doctors were given permission to go ahead with the surgery, much to our dismay. The parents gradually accepted that their daughters were going to be separated.
The 20-hour separation took place on 7 November 2000. Mary died in the operating theatre. Even though the parents were prepared for her death, it was nonetheless a shock to them. They did not accept that it was going to happen, but were happy that they were able to hold her and cuddle her for the first time because she was always joined.
As Mary’s death has not been a normal death, the pain has been especially hard for the Attards. Jodie has recovered well after the operation and has returned home. However, the Attards have since come to terms with the operation and are overjoyed to have Jodie in their lives today.
Posted by Brenda.
At birth, Jodie was active and breathing voluntarily with a good heart and chest movement and moving all four limbs. In Mary's case, there was a minimal response from the cardiopulmonary system before it failed. The medical team then realised that Mary's heart and lungs were so poorly developed that she was totally dependent on Jodie for oxygen and blood circulation. According to the doctors, the strain would give Jodie heart failure and kill both the daughters in three to six months.
The doctors then proposed an operation to separate the twins. The operation would cause Mary's immediate death, but Jodie was expected to have a good chance of surviving, and a reasonable chance, after further operations, of a full, healthy life.
The parents were shocked at their proposal and refused our consent to the operation. They could not possibly agree to any surgery being undertaken that would kill one of their daughters. Their daughters were equal in their eyes and in their love. As Roman Catholics, they felt that it was wrong to do evil - sanctioning the death of a child - even though it could result in good. In their opinion, everyone had a right to live and they could not begin to contemplate that one of their children should die to enable the other to survive.
The parents had faith in God, and were quite happy for God's will to decide what happens. They sincerely believed that it was God's will that their daughters be born the way they are and that they should be left to live their lives joined together as they are for so long as God in his mercy should ordain it.
Besides, as Jodie might be permanently brain damaged should the separation be successfully carried out, the parents felt that this would make it almost impossible to rear her on their home island of Gozo because the islanders would regard her as punishment for some earlier sin.
Regardless of the parent’s objections, the doctors proceeded on to seek permission from the High Court to authorise the separation of their daughters against their wishes. Following a prolonged legal battle and despite a determined effort by pro-life campaigners, the doctors were given permission to go ahead with the surgery, much to our dismay. The parents gradually accepted that their daughters were going to be separated.
The 20-hour separation took place on 7 November 2000. Mary died in the operating theatre. Even though the parents were prepared for her death, it was nonetheless a shock to them. They did not accept that it was going to happen, but were happy that they were able to hold her and cuddle her for the first time because she was always joined.
As Mary’s death has not been a normal death, the pain has been especially hard for the Attards. Jodie has recovered well after the operation and has returned home. However, the Attards have since come to terms with the operation and are overjoyed to have Jodie in their lives today.
Posted by Brenda.
Saturday, June 20, 2009
The Case of the Hospital - by Su Gi
In November 2000, the surgeons of St Mary’s Hospital separated Siamese twins Jodie and Mary (names changed to protect their privacy), having been given the green light by Britain’s courts after a month-long battle. On the other side were the twins’ parents, both Roman Catholics, opposing it because it was “not God’s will.”1 The operation was performed because it was likely that both twins would otherwise; with the operation, Mary would die but Jodie would be likely to survive.
This is yet another case in which science and religion collide in controversy. Did St Mary’s Hospital make the right decision in pushing for the separation of the twins, most likely giving Jodie a normal life at the expense of Mary’s? Or should they have let what some would call ‘fate’ or ‘God’ decide whether the twins, in their current state, would survive? One could easily argue that it amounts to the murder of an innocent, but the hospital’s stance had a great deal of validity behind it.
To begin with, while the hospital lacked experience in the field of conjoined twins, having never treated any before, it was backed by a second opinion by doctors – specifically, a surgeon and paediatric cardiologist - from London's Great Ormond Street hospital. The latter had credible experience in this area, having performed surgery on seventeen pairs of conjoined twins prior to the Mary and Jodie case. They would therefore be qualified to give their opinions on the possible outcomes of the surgery.
Furthermore, the hospital had taken into much consideration the complications surrounding the case. One consideration, for example, was the condition of both twins. As separate entities, Mary’s lungs and heart were incapable of supporting her body, and her brain was underdeveloped. Jodie, however, had fully functional organs and a normally developed brain. As such, the hospital had to consider the quality of life each twin could likely have were they either separated or left as they were.
The doctors arrived at the conclusion that, were the twins left in their current state, they had an eighty percent chance of dying within six months.2 If separated, Mary would almost have definitely died, her vital organs underdeveloped. Jodie, however, had a very high chance of surviving the operation and would likely be able to live a relatively normal life, save some disabilities. Based on the available evidence – numerous X-rays and scans of the twins were taken to gain as much information as possible3 - the doctors decided that, logically, it would be better to save one of the twins than lose both, as was likely to be the case.
There were inevitably accusations of the doctors failing to respect the parents’ religious beliefs and rights. Religious groups, as expected, condemned the surgery; the Archbishop of Westminster himself, the Most Rev. Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, stated his opposition: “…God has given to humankind the gift of life, and as such it is to be revered and cherished.”4 However, it has to be remembered that hospitals are ideally scientific and humanitarian, and not religious, institutions. As such, those part of them base their decisions on scientific fact and human ethics, and should not be guided by religious belief.
Physical health comes under the domain of Science. For millennia, mankind has worked to learn as much as possible about the human body through scientific enquiry. Theories have been rigorously and repeatedly tested through experimentation. Medicine and surgery has saved hundreds and thousands of lives, the result of knowledge and observations verified over many years.
In contrast, however, no supernatural claim made by religion has ever been proven through the scientific method. One of the many examples available is the widely-publicized 2006 prayer study by Havard Medical School. The study concluded that “intercessory prayer itself had no effect on complication-free recovery from [coronary artery bypass graft]”; in fact, “the certainty of receiving intercessory prayer was associated with a higher incidence of complications.”5 The religious often proclaim that if one prays hard enough, one will receive guidance from God in difficult times. The reality, however, as has been proven, is different. Religion should therefore play no part in medical decisions like the one the surgeons of St. Mary’s made. It is more reliable to rely on the scientific knowledge we currently possess than to trust to, it seems, chance.
Then there is the issue of parental rights. The parents would have been understandably been upset that they were not allowed to do as they wished; there are those who feel the parents should have been allowed to decide the fate of their own children. However, the surgeons were the ones who have been through years of medical school and training. The parents had not. The surgeons therefore clearly had much more authority with regards to assessing whether the twins would survive in either situation. Furthermore, the fact that the parents were strongly Roman Catholic further casts doubt on whether they would have been able to properly decide what would have benefited the twins most. Because their religion condemns separating the twins as an act of murder, as they would knowingly let Mary die, their beliefs would quickly lead them to shun that option without considering, without bias, the scientific evidence for the case. Their beliefs, in this case, would have very likely led to the deaths of both Mary and Jodie – instead of Jodie surviving as a result of the operation. Parental rights are important, but ensuring the lives of children are preserved, and not endangered because of their parents, is even more important.
There is never an easy answer in cases such as these, in which well-meaning parents clash with doctors over the fates of their children. However, it is the hospitals who are better equipped to make medical decisions, for they have personnel trained to do just that; and, after all, they are simply trying their best to save as many lives as possible, and help their patients the best they can.
Posted by Su Gi.
Footnotes:
1: The New York Times, November 7, 2000. Article
2: The New York Times, November 7, 2000. Article
3: Telegraph, November 7, 2000. Article
4: Telegraph, November 7, 2000. Article
5: National Center for Biotechnology Information, 2006. Page
This is yet another case in which science and religion collide in controversy. Did St Mary’s Hospital make the right decision in pushing for the separation of the twins, most likely giving Jodie a normal life at the expense of Mary’s? Or should they have let what some would call ‘fate’ or ‘God’ decide whether the twins, in their current state, would survive? One could easily argue that it amounts to the murder of an innocent, but the hospital’s stance had a great deal of validity behind it.
To begin with, while the hospital lacked experience in the field of conjoined twins, having never treated any before, it was backed by a second opinion by doctors – specifically, a surgeon and paediatric cardiologist - from London's Great Ormond Street hospital. The latter had credible experience in this area, having performed surgery on seventeen pairs of conjoined twins prior to the Mary and Jodie case. They would therefore be qualified to give their opinions on the possible outcomes of the surgery.
Furthermore, the hospital had taken into much consideration the complications surrounding the case. One consideration, for example, was the condition of both twins. As separate entities, Mary’s lungs and heart were incapable of supporting her body, and her brain was underdeveloped. Jodie, however, had fully functional organs and a normally developed brain. As such, the hospital had to consider the quality of life each twin could likely have were they either separated or left as they were.
The doctors arrived at the conclusion that, were the twins left in their current state, they had an eighty percent chance of dying within six months.2 If separated, Mary would almost have definitely died, her vital organs underdeveloped. Jodie, however, had a very high chance of surviving the operation and would likely be able to live a relatively normal life, save some disabilities. Based on the available evidence – numerous X-rays and scans of the twins were taken to gain as much information as possible3 - the doctors decided that, logically, it would be better to save one of the twins than lose both, as was likely to be the case.
There were inevitably accusations of the doctors failing to respect the parents’ religious beliefs and rights. Religious groups, as expected, condemned the surgery; the Archbishop of Westminster himself, the Most Rev. Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, stated his opposition: “…God has given to humankind the gift of life, and as such it is to be revered and cherished.”4 However, it has to be remembered that hospitals are ideally scientific and humanitarian, and not religious, institutions. As such, those part of them base their decisions on scientific fact and human ethics, and should not be guided by religious belief.
Physical health comes under the domain of Science. For millennia, mankind has worked to learn as much as possible about the human body through scientific enquiry. Theories have been rigorously and repeatedly tested through experimentation. Medicine and surgery has saved hundreds and thousands of lives, the result of knowledge and observations verified over many years.
In contrast, however, no supernatural claim made by religion has ever been proven through the scientific method. One of the many examples available is the widely-publicized 2006 prayer study by Havard Medical School. The study concluded that “intercessory prayer itself had no effect on complication-free recovery from [coronary artery bypass graft]”; in fact, “the certainty of receiving intercessory prayer was associated with a higher incidence of complications.”5 The religious often proclaim that if one prays hard enough, one will receive guidance from God in difficult times. The reality, however, as has been proven, is different. Religion should therefore play no part in medical decisions like the one the surgeons of St. Mary’s made. It is more reliable to rely on the scientific knowledge we currently possess than to trust to, it seems, chance.
Then there is the issue of parental rights. The parents would have been understandably been upset that they were not allowed to do as they wished; there are those who feel the parents should have been allowed to decide the fate of their own children. However, the surgeons were the ones who have been through years of medical school and training. The parents had not. The surgeons therefore clearly had much more authority with regards to assessing whether the twins would survive in either situation. Furthermore, the fact that the parents were strongly Roman Catholic further casts doubt on whether they would have been able to properly decide what would have benefited the twins most. Because their religion condemns separating the twins as an act of murder, as they would knowingly let Mary die, their beliefs would quickly lead them to shun that option without considering, without bias, the scientific evidence for the case. Their beliefs, in this case, would have very likely led to the deaths of both Mary and Jodie – instead of Jodie surviving as a result of the operation. Parental rights are important, but ensuring the lives of children are preserved, and not endangered because of their parents, is even more important.
There is never an easy answer in cases such as these, in which well-meaning parents clash with doctors over the fates of their children. However, it is the hospitals who are better equipped to make medical decisions, for they have personnel trained to do just that; and, after all, they are simply trying their best to save as many lives as possible, and help their patients the best they can.
Posted by Su Gi.
Footnotes:
1: The New York Times, November 7, 2000. Article
2: The New York Times, November 7, 2000. Article
3: Telegraph, November 7, 2000. Article
4: Telegraph, November 7, 2000. Article
5: National Center for Biotechnology Information, 2006. Page
Background information - Our Case Study
Reproduced from the University of San Diego:
"An anonymous couple from Malta traveled to England this past year for a complicated delivery of their Siamese twin daughters, Jodie and Mary, who were born on August 8, 2000, joined at the abdomen and with a fused spine. Doctors soon determined that unless the twins were surgically separated both would die.
Mary, the weaker twin, whose brain was underdeveloped, would never be able to survive separated from Jodie. Jodie, who was strong and alert, had an 80-90% chance of dying if surgery was not performed. She had a good chance of surviving in the event of surgery, although, in all likelihood she would be severely handicapped and need medical attention throughout her life. In similar cases in the past, the surviving twin has sometimes died within six months of surgery. In other cases neither twin survives. The medical team at St Mary's Hospital, to which the twins were taken, had never done a successful separation of Siamese twins.
When the medical team suggested surgical separation, the Parents, who were Roman Catholic, refused on religious and moral grounds to give their consent. The Hospital went to court, pleading that life-saving surgery was in Jodie's best interest, and that saving one of the twins would be morally preferable to losing both. The presiding judge acknowledged the court's duty "to put the welfare of each child paramount," but, nonetheless, concluded that Jodie's right to life outweighed Mary's, thus ruling in favor of the Hospital.
The Parents appealed the decision of the court. In support of the Parents' position, Archbishop Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, head of the Catholic Church of England and Wales, submitted a statement to the court of appeals in which he said:
"[T]hough the duty to preserve life is a serious duty, no such duty exists when the only available means of preserving life involves a grave injustice. In this case, if what is envisaged is the killing of, or a deliberate lethal assault on, one of the twins, Mary, in order to save the other, Jodie, then there is a grave injustice involved."
Despite the objections of the Parents and the Archbishop, the court of appeals ruled that the surgery should go forward. On November 7, 00 a team of twenty surgeons, nurses, and technicians at St. Mary's Hospital performed the 20 hour surgery that would result in the death of Mary and give Jodie a chance to live."
"An anonymous couple from Malta traveled to England this past year for a complicated delivery of their Siamese twin daughters, Jodie and Mary, who were born on August 8, 2000, joined at the abdomen and with a fused spine. Doctors soon determined that unless the twins were surgically separated both would die.
Mary, the weaker twin, whose brain was underdeveloped, would never be able to survive separated from Jodie. Jodie, who was strong and alert, had an 80-90% chance of dying if surgery was not performed. She had a good chance of surviving in the event of surgery, although, in all likelihood she would be severely handicapped and need medical attention throughout her life. In similar cases in the past, the surviving twin has sometimes died within six months of surgery. In other cases neither twin survives. The medical team at St Mary's Hospital, to which the twins were taken, had never done a successful separation of Siamese twins.
When the medical team suggested surgical separation, the Parents, who were Roman Catholic, refused on religious and moral grounds to give their consent. The Hospital went to court, pleading that life-saving surgery was in Jodie's best interest, and that saving one of the twins would be morally preferable to losing both. The presiding judge acknowledged the court's duty "to put the welfare of each child paramount," but, nonetheless, concluded that Jodie's right to life outweighed Mary's, thus ruling in favor of the Hospital.
The Parents appealed the decision of the court. In support of the Parents' position, Archbishop Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, head of the Catholic Church of England and Wales, submitted a statement to the court of appeals in which he said:
"[T]hough the duty to preserve life is a serious duty, no such duty exists when the only available means of preserving life involves a grave injustice. In this case, if what is envisaged is the killing of, or a deliberate lethal assault on, one of the twins, Mary, in order to save the other, Jodie, then there is a grave injustice involved."
Despite the objections of the Parents and the Archbishop, the court of appeals ruled that the surgery should go forward. On November 7, 00 a team of twenty surgeons, nurses, and technicians at St. Mary's Hospital performed the 20 hour surgery that would result in the death of Mary and give Jodie a chance to live."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)