Twins’ dilemma a terrible challenge to parents, court

  • William Raspberry / Washington Post columnist
  • Monday, September 25, 2000 9:00pm
  • Opinion

WASHINGTON — I’ve been trying to think of an appropriate analogy: Two children drowning and the parent able to save only one? Shooting a monster that has grabbed one of your children and is menacing the other, even though the shot will mean the death of the first child as well?

The reason nothing useful comes to mind is that the facts are as awful and as stark as anything I could imagine.

The British Court of Appeal ruled Friday that conjoined twins will have to be separated, even though the operation will almost certainly mean the death of one of them. The desperate parents fought unsuccessfully against the surgery.

They had come to Manchester from the Mediterranean island of Gozo when the mother was six months pregnant because they had learned that the babies were joined at the lower abdomen. They came in hope of finding a way "to give our babies the very best chance for life in the very best place."

What they found was a dilemma too cruel to contemplate. Their daughters "Jodie" and "Mary" were not merely joined but "Mary" had only a "primitive brain" and relied on her sister for heart and lung function. Separating them would kill "Mary" but give her "bright and alert" sister a real chance at survival. Leaving them conjoined would most likely mean the death of both.

But when the physicians announced plans to proceed with the separation, the Roman Catholic parents balked. They wouldn’t kill one child to save the other.

They were firmly backed by Archbishop of Westminster Cormac Murphy-O’Connor, head of the Catholic church at Manchester. "There is a fundamental moral principle at stake," he said. "No one may commit a wrong action that good may come of it. The parents in this case have made clear that they love both their children equally and cannot consent to one of them being killed to help the other. I believe this moral instinct is right."

Separation, the prelate insisted, would be "morally impermissible."

The distinguished Catholic ethicist J. Bryan Hehir of Harvard Divinity School finds Murphy-O’Connor’s reasoning unassailable. "Traditional Catholic thought holds that ‘directly intended killing of the innocent’ is always wrong," he said. The other moral calculus, which Hehir describes as "consequentialist" or "utilitarian" — and which he personally rejects — holds that the right thing to do is to "maximize good consequences."

That seems to be the court’s rationale. A High Court judge ruled a month ago that the surgery should proceed, and the parents appealed to the Court of Appeal.

Almost as though to make the "lifeboat" dilemma more difficult, the judges were told two weeks ago that Jodie appeared not to be growing, while her sister — the one given no hope of survival — was "growing normally."

Lawyers appointed for each of the twins laid our their arguments. "Without Jodie, Mary will die," said Jodie’s lawyer. "With Mary, Jodie will die."

Mary’s lawyer countered that his client had an interest in continuing her life. "Although this is a life of short duration very severely handicapped, there is insufficient evidence that it is so intolerable as to render it in the child’s best interest that it should end."

The first of the obvious questions is the ethics class question: What would you do? Would your answer be different if you were committed to the right-to-life view and found the deliberate taking of innocent life unacceptable?

But if your answer leads you to spare Mary’s life, doesn’t that decision make you guilty of taking Jodie’s equally innocent life and Mary’s as well?

The other obvious question, in some ways more difficult, is: What should the government do? And in particular what should it do when medical science and the religion-based wishes of the parents are counterposed?

It’s one thing to believe, as I do, that the decision the Appeal Court reached is the morally correct decision — quite another to concede to the three judges the right to make it.

Talk to us

> Give us your news tips.

> Send us a letter to the editor.

> More Herald contact information.

More in Opinion

toon
Editorial cartoons for Tuesday, July 8

A sketchy look at the news of the day.… Continue reading

A Volunteers of America Western Washington crisis counselor talks with somebody on the phone Thursday, July 28, 2022, in at the VOA Behavioral Health Crisis Call Center in Everett, Washington. (Ryan Berry / The Herald)
Editorial: Dire results will follow end of LGBTQ+ crisis line

The Trump administration will end funding for a 988 line that serves youths in the LGBTQ+ community.

Comment: Students can thrive if we lock up their phones

There’s plenty of research proving the value of phone bans. The biggest hurdle has been parents.

Dowd: A lesson from amicable Founding Foes Adams and Jefferson

A new exhibit on the two founders has advice as we near the nation’s 250th birthday in the age of Trump.

Was Republicans’ BBB just socialism for the ultra-rich?

It seems to this reader that the recently passed spending and tax… Continue reading

GOP priorities are not pro-life, or pro-Christian

The Republican Party has long branded itself as the pro-life, pro-Christian party.… Continue reading

Comment: $100 billion for ICE just asks for waste, fraud, abuse

It will expand its holding facilities, more than double its agents and ensnare immigrants and citizens alike.

toon
Editorial: Using discourse to get to common ground

A Building Bridges panel discussion heard from lawmakers and students on disagreeing agreeably.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) speaks during a news conference at the U.S. Capitol on Friday, June 27, 2025. The sweeping measure Senate Republican leaders hope to push through has many unpopular elements that they despise. But they face a political reckoning on taxes and the scorn of the president if they fail to pass it. (Kent Nishimura/The New York Times)
Editorial: GOP should heed all-caps message on tax policy bill

Trading cuts to Medicaid and more for tax cuts for the wealthy may have consequences for Republicans.

Alaina Livingston, a 4th grade teacher at Silver Furs Elementary, receives her Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine at a vaccination clinic for Everett School District teachers and staff at Evergreen Middle School on Saturday, March 6, 2021 in Everett, Wa. (Olivia Vanni / The Herald)
Editorial: RFK Jr., CDC panel pose threat to vaccine access

Pharmacies following newly changed CDC guidelines may restrict access to vaccines for some patients.

toon
Editorial cartoons for Monday, July 7

A sketchy look at the news of the day.… Continue reading

Comment: Supreme Court’s majority is picking its battles

If a constitutional crisis with Trump must happen, the chief justice wants it on his terms.

Support local journalism

If you value local news, make a gift now to support the trusted journalism you get in The Daily Herald. Donations processed in this system are not tax deductible.