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