Mary and Jodie - the cruellest choice

Mary and Jodie – the cruellest choice

The argument over the separation of Mary and Jodie has caused frustration, disturbance, and religious dispute. This is due to the fact that Mary [the weaker and pitiable baby] relies entirely on Jodie to keep her alive. Mary’s heart is unresponsive and so are her lungs. Her blood and oxygen are supplied by Jodie’s heart and lungs. Mary cannot even cry because she has no lungs of her own, her state is described as deplorable. Never the less, if the twins are kept un-separated they would both die in a matter of weeks. This situation brings up many moral issues and questions. Below I will answer the 2 main questions everyone has on their mind. 1) Is the separation, of Mary and Jodie, intentional killing? 2) Who should make the decision of Mary and Jodie’s fate?

Is the separation, of Mary and Jodie, intentional killing? Some have argued that separating Mary and Jodie violates the principle that human life is sacred and that no-one should be allowed to kill and innocent person. But it is not the death of one twin that secures the life of the other. Suppose that the twins were separated and the Mary received donated organs that secured her life. The fact that the weaker twin did not die would not in any way obstruct (or help) the survival of Jodie. The death of Mary is not a solution, but a ‘side-effect’. Theoretically, to kill one person to save another makes much sense. But is it right? Can the doctor perform the task of what he/she has spent years trying to avoid, killing a person. Is that humane, even if it saves another?

Human rights laws say that both twins are entitled to their say in the argument. Jodie can protest the fact that her sister has a parasitic drain on her life. Mary could protest about the whole idea of removing her from Jodie, as it would end Mary up dead. Mary may well choose to die, which is euthanasia. Even being only six months old, they’re still allowed their say. Seeing as they can’t talk yet, the responsibility lies on the next people in the equation, the parents.

Euthanasia is illegal already, even if the victim chooses to ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

Euthanasia is illegal already, even if the victim chooses to die, whatever state the victim is in. But according to the court, to kill one innocent baby, without even consulting the baby [if it could speak] is satisfactory. That is going against the whole concept of euthanasia, to kill a disabled person without a word about it from them. If this is allowed, it will twist the whole concept that is euthanasia. It will be more like murder.

Who should make the decision of Mary and Jodie’s fate? It seems common sense that the right thing to do is to save one life, rather than lose both. But the parents, being emotionally disorientated, wish for the twins to stay joined. But is being an ‘emotionally overwhelmed’ parent a problem? Some say that this love and devotion should be taken as signs of good parents, who are loving and committed. Are the court making the right decision? Can they overrule the parents’ decision?

Others say that the court have no right in this business. The parents’ decision lies at the heart of this vendetta. The court is in no way emotionally attached to Mary and Jodie, it is a simple decision for the court but a lifetime one for the parents. The parents argue, who are the court to decide their children’s' fate for them. The parents are the ones who brought the twins into this world; their word should be above that of the court.

The family in question are catholic. When the archbishop of Westminster found out about his problem he was appalled. He said “I have been particularly concerned that a precedent might be set in English law that could allow an innocent person to be killed, or lethally assaulted, to prolong the life of another”. So ‘god’s will’ is to leave these twins alone to die. Surely, isn’t that worse than leaving both twins to die?

Even if Jodie is saved by the operation, she will need extensive surgery on her bowel and vagina. She will not be able to hold normal conversations with others and these disadvantages will be life-long. The court believes that this will only put more emotional stress on the parents and that she would be better off dead. Maybe the Catholic Church is correct in saying that everything should continue without any doctors tampering.

I believe that the parents should get their way. They brought the twins into the world, are the next best people to do the decision making for their children and they are extremely emotionally attached to their children. Their decision should overrule that of the court, human rights groups, and the archbishop of Westminster. I find it hard to believe how some-one completely unknown to the parents must decide the fate of their own children. No matters how ‘emotionally excited’ the judges seem to think the parents are, the parents should get a first say.

Written by Senad Bokhari