Sophie’s Choice: The Moral dilemma Concerning Conjoined Twins

This project deals with the moral dilemma
of a sensational case of conjoined – thus also
often called Siamese - twins who were born in
Manchester, England, on Aug. 8, 2000. The
most controversial issue in this case is whether
it is morally permissible to separate them
surgically foreseeing that one of the twins will die in order to save the other. I argue that the
separation surgery is morally justified.
My argument consists of four steps. First
of all, I outline the most significant facts
without going into irrelevant details; In this
case, the medical indication leaves no doubt
that both twins will die within months if not
separated; but if separated, one will die
immediately while the other could live a long
life. Doctors in the hospital insist then on the
moral and legal permissibility of the surgery,
but the parents have a different opinion and
cannot agree to it. So the case came before the
courts where the decision whether or not to
permit or to refuse the medical treatment would
be made. The Supreme Court at last decided for
the separation on the 22nd of September, 2000,
and the surgery took place in November of the
same year. As predicted, one died and one
survived.
Secondly, different positions - the pros and
cons - on the issue are presented: (1) the
parents of the conjoined twins and the Catholic
Church in England oppose the separation. The
parents cannot imagine that one of their
children should die to enable the other to
survive. Supporting this idea, Archbishop of
Westminster Cormac Murphy-O'Connor holds
that there is a fundamental moral principle at
stake. No one may commit a wrong action that
good may come of it. Applied to this case, one
is not allowed to kill in order to save. (2) Most
physicians are for the surgery, and the legal
system has also decided in their favor. Appeal
is made to the principle of proportionate reason
and the doctrine of necessity among other
considerations. The issue of intentional killing
is also carefully analyzed by the judges.
Thirdly, I will examine various arguments underlying different positions. The point of the
examination is not so much an affirmation or
denial of certain positions as a critical analysis
of their soundness and consistency. Based upon
this analysis, I present, lastly, my own
arguments, which justify the separation surgery
in this unique case.