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