In the UK there has been an unfortunate case of Siamese twins that are not viable.
Medical staff believe that one can be saved if an operation is performed to separate them and the other will die.
Without it it both will die in a matter of some months.
The parents are from a devout religious background and, more important, have immense difficulty in making a decision as to which child to attempt to save and so have decided that nature must take its course.
Medical staff have applied and recieved leave to perform the operation from the judiciary.It is going to further appeal as it is a test issue.
It is a terrible decision the parents have to try to make and one can understand their reluctance. They will also have to return to their religious community with the knowledge that they ‘selected’ one child to live and the other to die.
Doctors have expressed some confidence that they can carry out the procedure with success.
There has been a very long thread already about parental rights and I felt that although I might mention it there it is big enough already.
I’m sorry I don’t have a link at the moment but I will try to furnish you with one.
Given that the operation still carries plenty of risks and the survivor is not guarunteed to have a normal life though it is possible, are the courts and medical staff right to step in , in this way ? And if so why ?
Please refer to the London Times at http://www.the-times.co.uk and so a search through their search function for “siamese.” You’ll find a number of articles on this unfortunate story.
A) The parents are not being asked to make a choice between which child should live. Mary is apparently severly underdeveloped and would have died without question under ordinary circumstances. Mary is only living because she is drawing strength from Jodie, her sister (essentially Jodie is ‘life support’ for Mary). Should they be separated Jodie will live, Mary will die.
B) If Mary and Jodie are left attached both children will almost certainly die.
C) Jodie will have no significant spinal or neurological problems if the two are separated (suggesting to me she might have something approaching a normal life).
D) Doctors are confident they can successfully separate the two children.
Given the above I’d say the doctors and the court are well within their legal and moral rights to impose the separation of these two children on the parents. Inaction can be just as wrong as action. We would have no problem forcing a parent who is neglectful to provide necessary care to their child. By taking a hands-off, let nature take its course view the parents of Jodie and Mary are taking action via inaction and allowing their children to die.
If they truly had to decide between two viable babies I could see their dilema but this is not the case. One child would certainly be dead had it been born in its current state without being attached to her sister while the other child would almost certainly survive.
There have been other threads around here on whether a parent can refuse medical treatment for a sick child on religious grounds. I feel that the case of Jodie and Mary falls in the same category. My personal opinion is that no parent should be allowed to pass a death sentence on their children for religiously motivated reasons (or any other reasons for that matter).
I say let the separation continue and give Jodie her chance at life.
Both of the chidren now have identities and personalities.As such in UK law they are both recognised as individuals notwithstanding the cojoining.We do not have legal euthanasia which is what in effect is being applied for.
The judge presiding over the case yesterday had been assured that the surgeons carrying out the operation would not be cutting into the tissue of the weaker chid but the judge then pointed out that it was impossible to determine where one child ended and the other began.
One letter in the Daily Telegraph explained in laymans terms, so that even I could understand, that when the embryo partially split there would be a time when the non-viable feotus would actually have been considered,for want of a better term, an extraneous growth on the viable feotus, and that the parents would have had little difficulty in making a decision at that time for an in-utero operation.
Although it may seem obvious at first to separate the two, if the most viable child were to die or have a seriously compromised life following the operation then the justification for it would be much reduced.Oh for 20/20 hindsight.
I honestly do not see any way of getting around the fact that the law recognises both of them as having full legal entitlements, even though both will die anyway if nothing is done, it seems a case where the law and science and morality are in a mire together.
There is the precedent for withdrawing medical treatment,feeding by tube or turning off life support to allowing the patient to die, but we are talking of permanent vegetative state conditions rather than the live conscious and sentient individuals here.
Medical staff make the decision not to treat patients every day because the prospects are so poor but not necassarily zero. Although this is inaction it is not considered to be immoral.
Please note that I am only presenting an alternative point of view and this is not necassarily how I actually see things.
Well put casdave and I see the problem you are describing (that both children are independent legal entities entitled to protection under the law). I’d be interested to know if under the legal circumstances casdave outlined if the parent’s wishes are of any importance or entirely moot. I.e. The court will do what the court will do irrespective of what mom and dad want.
What I’m about to write I merely do so as food for thought. I haven’t thought through all of the implications myself but figured I’d put it out here to bounce around.
Is it possible that the court could view Mary as murdering her sibling in order to justify their separation? I realize that ‘murder’ may be a strong word so take it for the idea I’m trying to get at and not as some statement that a few week old child be considered a murderer in the typical sense.
Still, if you were holding someone hostage who was dying at some point the police would just put a bullet in your head to save the other persons life.
If Mary is viewed as holding her sister hostage and threatening her life in the process isn’t there legal and moral justification to end the hostage takers life if no other avenue exists to save the hostage?
Again, I am not trying to paint little Mary as some evil soul doing harm intentionally. Just the same, harm is being done and in the end isn’t it incumbent upon society to attempt to save Jodie even at the cost of Mary’s life?
Wouldn’t it be in Jodie’s best interest to have this operation? It sounds to me like her parents are just being weak and selfish. I’m fairly certain Jodie’d like to have the operation and I’m as certain that Mary wouldn’t want to kill her sister either.
Do I think the government should have the right to impose this sort of activity on someone’s child(ren)? I guess I do, but it’s a slippery slope. Let’s take for example the woman who’s in jail in Texas: religious fanatic who’s first child choked to death during delivery because no one with any skill whatsoever was present to clear the little tikes lungs of fluid after birth. The sherriff has thrown her in jail because she’s pregnant again and they’re afraid she’s going to let another child die needlessly through ignorace/inaction. The plan now is to keep her locked up until she delivers and to enforce medical presence.
All of this smacks of the government thinking it is a better parent than an individual. What happens when the government (whoever that happens to be) doesn’t think YOU are being a good parent? Yes, both of the cases involve the death of a child, but it sets a precedent that a parents rights aren’t unbreachable.
Do I think this is the most aweful thing that the government can exert its power in this way? No, but the opportunity for abuse of this power is present. Would I vote for it? Probably.