Stakeholder: The Court

There have been many differences of opinions over the separation of Mary and Jodie. Each and every one of us is truly agonized over this case, and this is a really hard case to crack. This tragedy for this family has never been out of my mind since this case was brought to the court, and I really feel sorrow for them.

However, unquestionably, the court is for separation.

The unique and vital feature of this case is that Mary and Jodie share a common aorta, and the common aorta allows Jodie’s heart to pump the blood that she oxygenates through Mary’s blood. This is so as Mary’s heart and lungs have no capacity to sustain life. Mary would have died in the womb and at birth, if not for the support from Jodie. Mary lives on borrowed time, and she is not capable of independent existence. This imposed a strain on Jodie’s heart, and if this were to persist, her heart would fail and she will suffer from a cardiac arrest. She is not expected to live more than 6 months due to the strain imposed on her heart. Separating them would allow Jodie to lead a normal life. However, Mary would die within minutes as the common aorta would be severed.

We understand that the parents could not have brought themselves to kill their child, and we sympathize with them.

Our duty as the court is to put the welfare of each child paramount. Separation is indeed beneficial to Jodie, but it the opposite for Mary. There is presence of an irreconcilable conflict, and the court is unable to fully honour that separation gives each child her best. This is a really hard decision. However, as the court, we are unable to abdicate responsibility and hence we think that the only solution is to balance the welfare of each child, and to find the least detrimental alternative.

The court is not entitled to value to quality of human life as worth more than another, but it is legitimate to look at the actual condition of the children as they are and assess their legitimate expectations when determining whether it is worth treating them.

Mary cannot escape the fact that she has been fated for early death, her capacity to live have been fatally compromised. Undeniably, she has the right to live, but she only has little rights to be alive. She is alive only because she has the support from her sibling, Jodie. She is the main cause of Jodie ceasing to live. And based on that, Jodie is entitled to protest that Mary is taking away what is rightfully hers, and Mary is in a way, killing her. Removing Jodie form Mary would only mean that the doctors are coming to Jodie’s rescue, and removing the threat of fatal harm presented to her by Mary.

Separation is for Jodie’s best interests. After operation, she would be able to lead at least a normal, if not a not intolerable life. Tests have shown that Mary is indeed growing at the expense of Jodie. Although assessment showed that Jodie’s heart remained steady and there was no sign of failure, but there has been a lack of growth in Jodie. Jodie was eating well. The surgeon thinks that it might be due to the fact that Mary is drawing nutrition form Jodie.

The doctrine of the sanctity of life respects the integrity of the human body. The proposed operation would give these children's bodies the integrity which nature denied them. The surgery would have well intended purposes. It not only benefit Jodie, but it would be in the best interests of Mary, as for the twins to remain alive and conjoined in the way they are would be depriving them of the bodily integrity and human dignity which is the right for both of them. Continued life, whether long or short, would hold nothing for Mary except for pain and discomfort.

References:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/937586.stm
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/unviable-siamese-twin-mary-feeds-off-sister-jodie-appeal-court-told-698495.html

Lim Xiao Wei Charmaine
K. 16