This is the ongoing debate in the UK right now.
The state has kept control of the infants, against the parents wishes (they are Catholic, and came from Malta to get “expert” advice on saving both babies)
The judges ruled that one was destined to die, and avoiding surgery would only doom the other.
But knowing the one removed won’t live (not enough internal organs), wouldn’t that be murder?
An appeal is pending, but it has to be decided shortly.
Yes. I think thats pretty much the definition of murder.
It looks like you accidentally put this in the wrong forum, Easy Tokyo. I’ll send it over to Great Debates for you.
Catch, Gaudere and David B!
Well, if murder is the crime of unlawfully killing a person with malice aforethought, and the operation is done pursuant to court order, it might not, technically, be ‘murder’ - the doctors would not have the requisite state of mind.
But in my view, it’s at the least highly questionable - kind of a medical Sophie’s Choice. Perhaps the coldly pragmatic parent can say, when faced with such a choice, “Kill one of my children so that the other may live,” but I certainly understand their reluctance to do so.
I think one of the arguments against the debate about whether it was murder or not was one of self-defense; i.e. that the weaker baby would take away the stronger baby’s chance to live, and therefore it could be argued that the stronger baby has a right to life and that separation would be in effect self-defence. Pretty complicated case. My personal view is that it would be better to save the twin that can be saved, but obviously I don’t envy this terrible decision at all.
As you might imagine, this has been the subject of intense debate here for some weeks. It really is a frighteningly complex moral, ethical and legal conundrum. Once you are aware of all the facts, there really are no simple “yes” or “no” answers.
I also know the judges themselves are having serious problems with deciding who should live or die (remember, we don’t have the death penalty here so this is a very uncommon burden for the judiciary). It’s a horrible business for everyone concerned.
I find it difficult to debate it here as addressing all of the issues in outline would take me all of today. I just hope the judges and doctors aren’t too traumatised by having to resolve this. God knows how the parents are coping.
By definition, it can’t be murder, for the reasons that Bricker mentions - murder requires not only action but intent. Is it ethical? I don’t know. Is it ethical to allow both twins to die when you could have saved one? I don’t know the answer to that one either. Some ethical dilemmas don’t have correct answers.
One thing I would have to know before making my decision is how good the stronger twin’s chances are of surviving the operation. If she would most likely die as well, then I think the ethical choice would be to tell the parents to take the girls home and let them live among people who love them for the little time they have left. If the stronger twin has a good chance… it’s a hell of a choice to have to make.
AS regards the specific case in question, both babies would die if the surgery wasn’t performed so the only way I would view the situation as one which could result in murder is by leaving the babies as they are and letting them both die when one could lead a perfectly normal life.
The children share heart, lungs, spine, rectum, and vagina. Plainly the choice is for one of them to die or for both of them to die. The parents have said that it “is not god’s will” for the “parasitic” one to die so that the other lives.
Whilst personally my gut response is to say that by choosing not to deliver the babies in some shack in Malta where they would both be dead already takes it out of the hand of god, there is a choice here which is between government and the parents.
Whilst the parents’ choice on the face of it is to protect the weaker twin and the law’s position is to kill her, it is equally the case that the parents’ position is to kill the stronger twin and the law’s is to protect it by killing her sister.
A complicating factor here is that the Maltese government is likely to be picking up the tab for whatever happens. Given that this is a pretty poor country, the survival of the stronger twin will be taking resources from the health budget of other needy Maltese children. The healthier child will at best require five years of hospital treatment.
In my view, the right thing from the perspective of the twins is to kill the weak one. The right thing from the perspective of the Maltese community is not to operate, so that both of them die.
Whilst the parents are in my view making the wrong choice, I would stick by them and let them both die. In any case this an ugly, ugly situation which will occupy ethicists for many years.
As South Park has told us, the wisdom of Solomon is no help in practice.
picmr
It seems everyone keeps looking at this issue from the prospective of what’s fair. When dealing with the human condition there ain’t no such thing.
It has been determined that these are two babies. The weaker one is unfortunately nonviable. It is not fair. She will die whether her stronger sister lives or not. To force the stronger one who posssesses a brain,lungs and heart (while her twin does not) to use those organs to perform their functions for herself and her twin until both of them are dead seems to be the worst form of child abuse.
I cannot see how it would be better to have two dead children rather then one live one. I think it would be far better to try for the best outcome, at least one living.
Separating the two so that one may live is no more murder than donating the organs of a brain-dead accident victim. If there is no higher brain functioning the person is DEAD ALREADY.
Also on another note, perhaps it is God’s will that the weaker twin should die. Who are we to say what is Goid’s will.
Mojo,
What if we change the scenario a bit…
Imagine a set of older siamese twins, who can speak for themselves. This set also shares vital organs.
One is diagnosed with a cancer that will kill her. The other is, as yet, unaffected. (Yes, I know this is highly unlikely, but bear with me.) The healthy one now wants to be seperated from the other so that she can live. She knows that by staying attached, she would eventually contract the cancer and die. Would you say that at the request of the healthy one, we should force the cancerous one to be seperated (a process that would kill the cancerous one) from her? Most people, I believe, would say that forcing the cancerous one to die so that the other could live would be murder.
The only difference I see between this case and the present one is that in this case, the “adult” twin can protest and speak for him/herself, whereas the baby can’t.
Zev Steinhardt
This is such a heart breaking situation.
There is no good solution, IMHO.
One other thought as a tangent to Zev,
The surviving twin. When she is older, how will she feel knowing that her sister had to die in order for her to live?
Like I said, heart breaking, no good solution.
In response to the two previous posts, you are both overlooking the most crucial piece of information.
THE WEAKER TWIN CAN NOT SURVIVE NO MATTER WHAT! SHE HAS ONLY A PRIMITIVE BRAIN.
In the scenario Zev describes, that would clearly be murder. One could not even argue self-defense. That scene introduces a disease process into an otherwise viable situation. Adult twins, right? With a disease process, there could be treatments or options.
This poor baby has severe congenital deformities so profound that she cannot be salvaged. There is no option. There is no treatment.
with all due respect, Mojo, I was NOT overlooking that point.
I understand, all too well, that left alone, both will die. with intervention one has a much better chance of living.
I still am heartbroken at the situation (remember the movie Sophie’s Choice?), and still say that there will be emotional ramifications for the surviving twin later on. I have read of people in disaster situations having what they term “survivor guilt”, just for the luck of the draw. how much worse it may be for the poor child who will know with certainty that her sister died so that she would have a chance to live.
Clear now?
I was never UNclear to begin with. Just for arguments sake, I’ll refer to the stronger twin as “A” and the weaker twin as “B”
“B” will die no matter what. Period. She is NOT dying to save her sister, as noble a cause as that is. She is dying because her deformities are so severe that they are incompatible with life.
“A” should be told that she had a sister who died as soon as she is able to understand the concept of death. Under no circumstances should she be told that her twin was killed in order that she might live. A statement such as that would do irrepairable damage. It would also be sadistic and untrue.
I loved the movie Sophie’s choice, but,it is not relevant to this case. In the movie, Sophie was forced by evil Nazi bastards to choose which of her children to kill. That is entirely different from choosing to let one of them live.
Do you really believe there is a ghosts chance in hell this child will NOT at some point know? Geez. She’ll have this enormous scar, some idea that there was surgery around her birth, you don’t think she’ll ever hear about the famous case about the conjoined twins where one had to die??? Even if no one in her immediate area doesn’t tell her (remember how kindly children treat each other)
you didn’t need to spell out A, B, etc. I’ve always been clear on the issue that at least one will certainly die. I was adding in the thought that the other twin DOES survive, there will be some serious issues ahead.
You apparently realize that there would be some serious pain when she finds out.
I believe that it’s not a question of if, but when.
I had a friend who’s husband, in a state of serious mental imbalance attempted to kidnap and kill her. She got away, and he killed himself, instead. the kids were 6 and 3 at the time. Since the matter was publicized in the paper, the children at some point in time WILL find out.
Didn’t King Solomon handle this one before?
Never mind…
Of course I realize that the child will know that she had an attached twin, and the whole story. I also believe that how much damage is done to her psyche will depend on how she is told. It is an unique and usual case. Only an extremely naive person could think that she wouldn’t know something was unusual about herself. I believe she should be told the truth, no more no less. The truth is her twin died. She lived. That is the truth. If she knows the truth, then other peoples lies will have no power.
To say that her twin was killed so that she could live is a lie. It is a moral judgment. It does nothing to change the facts. Statements like that are made by a person with a guilty conscience.
With love, open discussions, and understanding, I think the girl will do just fine. I firmly believe that. She should only feel guilty if someone makes her feel that way.
I understand that. However, congenital defects or no, she is still a person and entitiled to the same protections that we all are.
I’m sorry, Mojo57, I may have led you a bit astray. What I meant when I thought up the scenario (but apparently forgot to type) was that the cancer in the twin was inoperable. In this case, too, one of the twins will not survive, no matter what.
Zev Steinhardt
This is a terribly sad situation, and it’s clear that everyone concerned has full respect for life.
But what if you rephrase the thread:
If you fail to split Siamese twins, knowing it will kill one, is it murder?