A point that the judge in the case has made is that since the weaker twin is in essence “sucking the life” out of the stronger one, she is killing her twin. As such to separate them is self-defence. It is this self-defence argument that is being explored.
The judge ruled for separation. Permission to appeal to the house of lords has been granted although to my knowledge the parents have not yet decided whether or not they will do so.
Incidentally ET, as I think London_Calling pointed out in another thread about the same issue (I can’t seem to find it despite repeated searches), don’t confuse the courts with the state in the UK.
A number of years ago, this question was posed to Rabbi Moshe Feinstein, the leading Halachic (Jewish law) authority of his time. He too, was asked about a situation where there were siamese twins, where, if they remained attached, they would die. Yet, if one was removed (thereby killing him) the other one had a good chance to live.
When posed with the question, he asked if the procedure could be reversed. In other words, the doctors were proposing to remove Baby A to save Baby B. Was it possible, he wanted to know, to remove Baby B and save Baby A. When informed that it was not possible to do so, he then ruled that the operation should proceed. He ruled based on the principle of a rodef (literally: a persuer). If someone is chasing after you to kill you, you can take any steps necessary to save your life, including killing the persuer. This applies even if the persuer is unintentionally threatening you. This is the same rationale behind allowing a woman to have an abortion if the fetus threatens the life of the mother. Since Baby A was, in effect, a rodef, it was permitted (and probably required) to remove him.
Please note, however, that circumstances in the cases may not be the same, and one cannot take Rabbi Feinstein’s ruling to apply to the current case at hand.
I assume that after the separation, the surviving twin will be given back to her parents. Given their stated opinion on the matter, what are the chances that she will ever have any chance at a normal life? I realize this is a little off the OP, but the posters who mentioned survivor guilt made me think of it. I wonder if the parents, unable to strike at the system that took away their choice (rightly, I beleive) will drop the entire burden on the remaining child. “You killed your sister, you must spend your life in penance”, that sort of thing. It’s hard to imagine parents doing this, but it is certainly not unusual for an adult to take out their anger and frustrations on a child. After all, they have already stated that they would rather let this child die with her sister than try to save her. the best this baby can hope for at this point is that the parents will allow another family to adopt her so she can have some sort of chance at life.
When I first head about this I was unhesitatingly for separating the babies against the parents wishes. Now I’m not. but it has nothing to do with considering the death of the second child murder.
The surviving child will have extremely serious problems that will be very expensive and difficult to take care of. The parents do not want to separate the children for religious reasons. That is absolutely their right. And considering the situation they would be faced with if this is done, I can support that.
As foretroraunch the second child? Well, considering that she is grossly brain damaged and would never be alive if she werent’ attached to her sister, I think it perfectly ethical to separate them, in exactly the same way abortion is perfectly ethical: the fact that you need MY body to live isn’t MY problem. MY body is mine to do as I please.
Too bad we can’t ask the healthy child what she would want…which I am guessing would be to be separated.
This has come up before. See: What Would Solomon Do? started by Leah Zero. It kinda got off topic. (Hey, I wasn’t the only one who got off topic, OK?)
I think it is a sad situation. I’m just glad that I can express my views without having any responsibility; I think they should be seperated. Losing one child is better than losing two.
lucie
Are you saying that the child should be removed because the parents might try to make the surviving child feel guilty and require penance? Isn’t that part of being catholic?
I’m saying it would be a terrible thing for the entire load of guilt and penance to be dumped on a child for something entirely beyond her control.
The parents stated position seems to be “both or none, as God sees fit” (and if God is going to take a personal interest in the procedings, it doesn’t matter what the courts or the doctors decide to do). If they are going to make life hell for the remaining child, yes, I think it would be better for them to give her to a loving family than to take her back and share the guilt. If they can take her and love her properly, regarding her survival of the surgery as an example of God’s will, great. I am just expressing my doubts about that outcome.
And, regardless of religious doctrine, I don’t believe anyone should be forced to take on the burden of guilt for the actions of others or circumstances beyond their control. Obviously, I would have made a very bad Catholic.
It comes down to a single question: Do you want one dead child, or two dead children?
The answer is easy.
Actually, it is even more simple in this case. If one of the “children” has no real brain, then it’s only some tissue that needs to be trimmed for the real child to live. That is nothing close to murder.
As for guilt, that is something that will have to be dealt with. Should the real child die just so she can avoid feeling guilty? The parents will most likely feel guilt no matter what action they take.
Not necessarily. I don’t know if you have kids Demise, but I can tell you as a parent, I don’t know if I could (God forbid) actively kill one of my children to save another.
The guilt is a non-issue. Anyone who would make the girl feel guilty about something like this is… well, I don’t use that kind of language.
I can understand what you are saying, but my point is this: could you let both children die from your inactivity? If you could save one, why any hesitation?
keep in mind, 'tis not ** my **decision to make. I believe the parents in question ** made ** their wishes known. My opinion of their decision is irrelevant.
This really is not as odd of a situation as you’d like to believe. Yes, the conjoined part is different, but, frankly I see a whole lotta parrallels 'tween this and the woman who was pregnant with 9 fetuses, and elected to try and carry all of them (of course her decision had nothing to do with the notarity, tabloids feeding frenzy et al). It is a generally accepted safe practice to selectively abort several fetuses in these cases in order to increase the survival chances of those who are left. In her case, of course, all NINE died. But it was her decision to make.
I will be eternally grateful that I’ve never had to personally make this choice. and even more grateful that I didn’t have millions of people trying to make a hard decision even more difficult.
To all of you who think it’s a “no brainer” and obvious choice, it should be obvious to you by now that, at the very least, for the parents it was NOT the obvious choice to make.
If you are asking me “why any hestitation,” Demise then you obviously don’t have children.
Children are not like cars where you can make a split second decision to wreck a lesser value one to save a greater value car. Each child is special and unique. Killing one to save another is not a decision so easily made, even if the one you are going to kill is going to die anyway.
I don’t know how to better put this into words. I hope you can understand what I am trying to convey.
When/if you have two or more children Demise, you’ll understand.
I think that the whole “mentally damaged” tangent is irrelevant. Thousands of kids are born or thrust into situations that are at least as psycologically damaging as this one, and infanticide is never suggested as a solution (How wil this two-year old deal with the fact that her mother traded her for crack? Bettter kill her so that she never finds out). Emotional trauma–massive emotional trauma–is a fact of life for many people on this earth. Whether or not this girl will be severly tramatized if she survives (and of course she will be, although how it is handled will of couse make a difference) has no baring on the mortality of savingf her life/allowing her die. None of us have the authority to say that her life is less worthy because it will be painful.
Manda, I can’t speak for others, but for myself, I was ** NOT ** suggesting that since this child’s life would be painful, “kill her now”.
My position:
I am eternally grateful that I personally have not had to attempt to make this decision. I haven’t a clue what I would do, because it causes me too much pain to even THINK of the possibility of loosing a child of mine.
The parents, for whatever ** their ** reasons are, have made their wishes known.
The folks who claim “it’s a no -brainer - ya either have one dead kid or two” are not fully appreciating the dillema facing those parents. to in essence, order the death (or if you prefer, "hasten the inevitable death) of their own child, **even if there may be a “good reason” ** HAS to be excrutiating. to call this an “easy, obvious choice” is incredible.
you posted ‘I am eternally grateful that I personally have not had to attempt to make this decision. I haven’t a clue what I would do, because it causes me too much pain to even THINK of the possibility of losing a child of mine.’
I agree completely.
You posted ‘The folks who claim “it’s a no -brainer - ya either have one dead kid or two” are not fully appreciating the dilemma facing those parents: to, in essence, order the death (or if you prefer, "hasten the inevitable death) of their own child, even if there may be a “good reason” HAS to be excrutiating. To call this an “easy, obvious choice” is incredible.’
I don’t think anyone has called this easy. But let me explain why I agree they should operate, by turning your post round. Remember that one child will survive ONLY IF they operate. Then NOT operating means:
…the dilemma facing those parents: to, in essence, order the death … of their own child, even if there may be a “good reason” HAS to be excrutiating. To call this an “easy, obvious choice” is incredible.
Glee, with all due respect, you are incorrect about one thing.
Demise, ** did ** in fact state “the answer is easy”.
I disagreed. What may have seemed “easy” (their word) and “obvious” and “why hesitate?” to them, I believe for the actual parents involved would be anything BUT “easy, obvious” and something that should be done quickly.
The parents have now decided not to appeal the British Court order to have the twins seperated.
I certainly hope everything goes well with the surgery and that this family can put their lives back together as best as possible about this.
I must admit that this thread and story made me think quite a bit and it touched me personally far more than I thought it would.
Personally, I am still undecided as to what the right thing to do is. In fact, in this very thread I’ve sat on both sides of the fence. Let us just hope that no one else needs to make these painful decisions.
and although I still believe that the parents had more of a moral right to make this painful decision than anyone else, I have to confess that I am relieved that the surgery will be done.
I have always been grateful for the health of my child, once again, I’ve been reminded.
Well, I think it’s the only logical choice to make, but this is hardly a situation where logic is supreme is it? As a parent, I don’t think I could live with myself if I failed to save the one daughter, even at the expense of the other-- or so say I a few thousand miles away with no emotional involvement-- but I cannot fault the parents for their choices. After all, being not taking action to save one daughter is the same thing in this case as taking action to kill one daughter. How is it that they can be blamed for wanting to “leave it up to God?” There is no escaping the burden of guilt for these parents, and I am glad that it’s not a choice I am forced to make.