Is it right to sacrifice a life to save another?

After research on the case of Jodie and Mary, I have decided to argue from the religious viewpoint on this case. The mere fact that Jodie and Mary were recognized as separate individuals would have been able to give an indication that it would not have been morally correct to sacrifice one life for the sake of the other. Both, being separate and legal humans, would have the rights to their own lives and though Mary’s physical situation is such that it would render her dependent upon her sister Jodie for her continued existence, removing herself as a threat to her own sister’s life would have meant the disregard of the viewpoint of her as an individual person.

This decision (to undergo the potentially life-threatening separation operation to Mary) would have also been made without the consensus of the parties directly involved – namely Jodie and Mary, as they would not have (or would not be able to) developed and grow to such a point where they would have been able to make decisions for themselves. In which case, the parents’ consent to allow the medical operation would be needed, and in the case of Jodie and Mary, the consent was not given. Their reasoning was mainly based on the fact that as Catholics, they believed that God created their children in the way He wished to, and that it was also up to His wish as to how long they would be able to live. They did not wish to do anything which would harm any one of their daughters, and as the separation would have implied the death of Mary, they hence did not want to go against the natural flow of what should have been.

Apart from the two parties directly involved (Jodie and Mary), and their parents who gave them their lives, who else would be entitled to a right in deciding the fate of the children? What exactly would give the medical authorities or the court the right to decide that the continued unity of the twins would not have been the best solution to resolving the issue – even if their suggested options in resolution may have not been what the parties involved, or what the parents have wished for? These are controversies which arose from the case, and are key points when considering if it would have been right to sacrifice Mary’s life to save Jodie. Even with Jodie’s life preserved in the end, one would have to wonder about the actual causes of the separation, as this would mean a grave injustice to Mary.

There are five overarching moral considerations which govern this submission:

(a) Human life is sacred, that is inviolable, so that one should never aim to cause an innocent person's death by act or omission.

(b) A person's bodily integrity should not be invaded when the consequences of doing so are of no benefit to that person; this is most particularly the case if the consequences are foreseeably lethal.

(c) Though the duty to preserve life is a serious duty, no such duty exists when the only available means of preserving life involves a grave injustice. In this case, if what is envisaged is the killing of, or a deliberate lethal assault on, one of the twins, 'Mary', in order to save the other, 'Jodie', there is a grave injustice involved. The good end would not justify the means. It would set a very dangerous precedent to enshrine in English case law that it was ever lawful to kill, or to commit a deliberate lethal assault on, an innocent person that good may come of it, even to preserve the life of another.

(d) There is no duty to adopt particular therapeutic measures to preserve life when these are likely to impose excessive burdens on the patient and the patients' carers. Would the operation that is involved in the separation involve such 'extraordinary means'? If so, then quite apart from its effect on Mary, there can be no moral obligation on doctors to carry out the operation to save Jodie, or on the parents to consent to it.

(e) Respect for the natural authority of parents requires that the courts override the rights of parents only when there is clear evidence that they are acting contrary to what is strictly owing to their children. In this case, the parents have simply adopted the only position they felt was consistent with their consciences and with their love for both children.

(Adapted from http://www.rcdow.org.uk/textonly/cardinal/default.asp?content_ref=45)

All these point towards the fact that it would not be up to external parties to decide readily if such a sacrifice would be better. Taking into consideration the possible implications of the separation on the lives of Jodie and her parents after the separation would further amplify this point. The parents, originally against the separation, would have to take time to recover from the loss of one of their children. The separation was too made without Jodie nor Mary’s consensus, and hence Jodie may have to face a struggle in coping with the knowledge of how her twin sister was lost when she grew up, and may not also have agreed to the decision originally passed to separate.

Hence, it would not have been right, morally or otherwise, to pass a decision to sacrifice a life to save another’s, especially because the parties involved would not have been able to give their consensus to such a sacrifice in the first place. We would have never found out what would or could have occurred if a separation had not taken place, and we could not foresee how the effects of the separation would turn out now that the sacrifice had taken place. However, in considering the rights of both Jodie and Mary to their lives, and their parents’ rights over them, in this case, I do believe it is not correct to wish for a sacrifice to occur.

Labels: religious viewpoint