(how’s that for an inflammatory subject line?)
Here’s the link.
If the medical evidence is absolutely certain that both twins will die without the surgery, I’d have to say it should go ahead. The parents have no more right to deny this to their child than they have the right to deny any other lifesaving treatment to their child. But I sure would hate to be the one to have to make that decision.
Anyone else?
Oh, boy, what a position to be in.
If both babies will die, though, then I’d agree that surgery is necessary. If it were me, I’d do it. But it’s not me, and I don’t know the babies, so I can’t make the call for them. I think it’s got to be up to the parents. I just hope they get some good, sound medical information and counseling. Losing one or both of their children is going to hurt bad.
Bad link
works fine on my computer, Daniel.
“HTTP error 400 / 400 bad request / malformed syntax, etc”
Works on mine too. but for the benefit of Daniel.
that’s a tough one. I really have no idea what i would do. What I would do if I was the parents, what I would do if I was the doctor. A real moral dilema that one.
Now that the court has mandated that one twin shall die to protect the life of the other, will the court act over the decades to come to provide the assurance to the surviving twin that no fault attaches to her that her sister died? Will the government assume the emotional blame, and help the child, and her parents deal with that horrible guilt?
The decision of the parents could be made with love. Then the court must endeavor to make that same commitment when it barges into the lives of this family. The Court owns a very large responsibility to this family.
Tris
The parents were denying one of their daughters lifesaving treatment. That qualifies as abuse. The court would be remiss if it did not step in.
If there’s no chance of either of the children surviving for any appreciable period of time without the surgery, I can see the merits of the decision to go ahead with the surgery.
However, I don’t think it’s a totally clear-cut decision. What if non-Siamese twins had been born, each with a fatal condition. Nothing could be done to save one of them, but the other could be saved with a liver transplant. Would it be justified to kill the one who was doomed anyway to put the liver into the sibling? On the reasoning that seems to have been applied in this case, then it would, but personally I would feel a uneasy about it.
Also, I can’t see the legal basis on which the decision has been reached (though I’m not a lawyer). I expect that this will go to the Court of Appeal before a final decision is taken.
Tom:
In this scenario, I’d say no. It’s never acceptable to kill a person to take her organs, even if that person is doomed anyway. I think an exception might be if the donor was a fully informed, consenting adult who chose to cut her doomed life short in order to save her twin’s life. Of course, at this time this isn’t an option, either.
(Aside: when my dad was dying of cancer and his liver failed, my gramma was infuriated when she was told that she couldn’t give him her liver. “Gramma, you’ll die if you give away your liver.” “So what?!? I’m ninety five years old! He’ll get more use out of it than I would.”)
This isn’t quite the same as the conjoined twin scenario, though, because the only reason the healthy twin is doomed is because her underdeveloped sister will soon literally suck the life out of her. Separation from the weaker twin is self-defense, or rather the court has stepped in to defend her from the threat posed by her twin.
At least they don’t have to choose one, though; that could only make it worse…
It seems to me that the parents are deluding themselves. Their position is that they do not want either child to die. But it seems clear from the medical evidence that both children will die if one is not preemptively killed first. So what I would like to see – and what is missing from the article – is some indication of what the parents’ decision is (or would be) if they fully appreciated the ramifications of leaving the twins conjoined. I see nothing to indicate they really do understand those ramifications.
quote:
…medical evidence had shown that if the twins were not separated, both would die within three to six months because of the strain on Jodie’s heart and lungs.
Seems like a pretty easy decision to me, have one die or both die.
Dear Lord, these poor parents. 
Should the court intervene? In this case, I don’t think so. The children were born conjoined and that’s a tragedy in itself. To force the parents to sacrifice a child, even for the sake of the other, is stepping over its bounds.
Hopefully as time goes on, they will accept what the experts have been telling them – that both will surely die if they are not separated – and come to a decision that they can live with. Personally, I hope they decide to save the one. But if they don’t, and both die, then I wouldn’t hold it against the parents. They are acting as all parents do and trying to protect their kids – healthy or not.
From my logical, dispassionate, personally uninvolved viewpoint, I think it’s right that one be sacrificed to save the other, and that the court forces that decision if necessary. One dead is not as bad as two dead.
If I had already interacted as a father with the one that’s to die, this decision would likely be impossible for me to make.
I’ve not had time to look for the decision itself, but at a guess I’d say the High Court has based its decision on its parens patria jurisdiction - a common law jurisdiction that allows the court to look after the interests of minors, mentally handicapped persons, and so on, who cannot look after themselves and need the protection of the court.
Of course, in this case, counsel for both of the children could arguably invoke the parens patria jurisdiction - so then it would be a case of deciding which one most needs the aid of the court.
I agree it’s likely to go to the Court of Appeal - and then to the House of Lords, I would think. Because of the 3-6 month prediction, they’ve got a bit of time, but even so, the entire appeal process will have to be done on an expedited basis.
Hmmm… but maybe that’s it. maybe, like Revtim said, if you had already looked at the other baby as a daughter, you could not make that decision. Maybe the courts are doing them a favor- but letting it be not their decision, a decision too horrible for them to make themselves, which they will regret not making when both their children are gone.
The key issue for the parents is that they apparently want both to die.
They came to the UK from an unspecified “Southern European country” - exactly where wasn’t released for “legal reasons” (guessing at somewhere in the Balkans) - where the culture is set firmly against raising deformed children.
Quite why they’re here I haven’t discovered but they do seem to want both to die.
Also, I can’t begin to imagine the psychological scars that the surviving child will have to live with.
My understanding is that the Court has to rule in the best interests of the child. Is that the case and, if so, how does it work in a case where the interests of two children are mutually exclusive (i.e. it is in the interests of one to kill the other)?
The House of Lords is in recess until October. Is there any procedure for them to hear an appeal while the House is in recess, or will it have to wait till then? If so, it’s cutting it a bit fine.