The Roman Catholic Diocese of Westminster - Cardinal

(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

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

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jodie and Mary—The Parents View

Zuo Yue (28) 4K

-Should the parents let nature take its course? And not making any effort of save at least one of them?

After reading about the Siamese Twins Jodie and Mary, I’ve decided to take up the role of the parents and to give advice in their situation. According to the news, the twins’ parents have decided to let nature take its course, which is probably letting the twins die on the medical view. And their decision has incurred a lawsuit against the Hospital. I think the parents are in a very hard situation, struggling with their moral values, their love for the child and their religion. They can’t choose to let both live, and they don’t want both to die. Also, because they are Catholics, they do not support “killing” one to allow the survival of another. Due to their status, they are on a very contradicting stand, they would very much want Jodie to live, but to them it’s not morally correct. According to Catholic religion, Mary has a brain, organs( though not functioning) and the only part they are sharing is the bladder, and therefore, Mary is a person and has the right to live. Choosing the path to surgery implies that the doctors, the court are killing Mary, and only by letting things go the way they are is the right choice. The moral value that drove their decision, I believe is impartiality, in the parent’s view, the equal treatments to both children is their main reason for objecting the operation and partially due to compliance to nature. However, this will result in the death of both children as they are not able to outlive 6 months according to the medics, if not separated.

Religion should be respected, but on certain scale, the decisions of parents should not lie entirely in the hands of religion as religion sometimes give rise to prejudice such as “handicapped are better dead” ¹. If the decision were to not let the pair undergo surgery, Jodie would not have survived and both of the twins would have been dead due to the incapability to sustain their life. That will be the inevitable and cruel truth but to the parents, is that the NATURE they really want? They are depriving the chance anyone of them to live, then what about the decision of the children? If people would like to say that Mary is killed by the surgery, I would rather they say that Mary has died due to failure of the surgery. In another example about Faith and Hope (see below) , another pair of conjoined twins. They might both die if operation is not performed due to deterioration of organs. They have both died 23 days apart but their parents have made an effort to save them, now, is that to say that their parents have killed them?or rather, they have done their best in SAVING them?

Personally, I do not believe that parents should have total control over the lives of their disabled child, there must be an independent opinion and I think that letting the issue to become a public affair and a legal issue. Supposing the child has Spina Bifida or was brain damaged due to premature birth, and the parents made the decision to withdraw feeding, which is to let the child starve to death, in this situation, many of us will not support the idea. And often in UK or even other countries, parents have the rights to terminate treatment or the lives of their children, sometimes pressurized by medics or religion in this case and their bias opinions (E.g. to terminate the life of the child because of brain death). Therefore, I suggest a solution that there should be independent service available to parents who have disabled children, and provide them with an impartial judgments and suggestions to allow them to “assess”. Making the issue legal and public will also facilitate in “unbiased” decisions.

Footnote

1. A quote from http://www.johnnypops.demon.co.uk/poetry/articles/jodieandmary/livewithdignity.htm by Jane Stewart