Journal of Medical Ethics 27 (1):3-4 (2001)

Raanan Gillon
Imperial College London
Late last year the English Court of Appeal confirmed a lower court's ruling that doctors could impose an operation to separate recently born conjoined twins, overriding the refusal of consent of their parents. The doctors believed the operation would probably save one of the babies at the cost of killing the other, while not operating would highly probably be followed by the death of both twins within months of their birth. The parents, said to be devout Roman Catholics, believed that it was absolutely wrong to kill one of their babies, even to save the life of the other.Undoubtedly many people, the writer included, would agree with the English courts that the “least worst” option was to separate the twins and save one at the cost of killing the other. But surely many fewer people would have imposed their own resolution of this acute moral dilemma upon parents who conscientiously chose the other limb of the dilemma, refusing to kill one baby even in order to save the other. Were the English judges right, then, to take away the parents' normal right and duty to make health care decisions on behalf of their children and instead impose their own answer to what they admitted to be a terrible dilemma? Describing the two alternatives in terms of choosing between the lesser of two evils on the one hand, and the obligation not to kill on the other, Lord Justice Ward declared, according to The Times law report,1 that: “Parents who were placed on the horns of such a terrible dilemma simply had to choose the lesser of their inevitable loss [sic]”. But that surely is to beg the moral question in favour of the judges' preferred answer to this moral dilemma. The fact is that there are—as …
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1136/jme.27.1.3
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 63,437
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Researchers Have a New Option for Testing Patients’ Role in Clinical Decisions.[author unknown] - 2003 - Journal of Medical Ethics 29 (5):266-266.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Ethics: English High Court Orders Separation of Conjoined Twins.Jacob M. Appel - 2000 - Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 28 (3):312-318.
One Into Two Will Not Go: Conceptualising Conjoined Twins.M. Q. Bratton - 2004 - Journal of Medical Ethics 30 (3):279-285.
Thomson's Violinist and Conjoined Twins.Kenneth Einar Himma - 1999 - Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 8 (4):428-435.
Animalism, Dicephalus, and Borderline Cases.Stephan Blatti - 2007 - Philosophical Psychology 20 (5):595-608.
The Limits of Individuality: Ritual and Sacrifice in the Lives and Medical Treatment of Conjoined Twins.D. A. - 1998 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 29 (1):1-29.


Added to PP index

Total views
28 ( #390,371 of 2,449,205 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #441,480 of 2,449,205 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes