The challenging case of the conjoined twins presents a situation that no parent should ever find themselves in. However, this case also presents clear outcomes that the twins’ parents were familiarized with. While the case did require an intervention from the court, the parents had a chance to make this challenging decision. Such killing can never be seen as an act of good, especially among Catholic believers. However, it is a sacrifice necessary to be made since the loss of life is set to be unavoidable. In turn, the principle of double effect may be considered an option for justification since it allows an evil act to be committed when it is not a direct goal or an avoidable outcome (Realbuto, 2020). Following this way of thinking, the operation was the only possible choice.
The second choice – the inaction – was profoundly unacceptable, both from the position of a religious person and as a parent. From a strictly utilitarian point of view, doing nothing will inevitably bring great harm to both Jodie and Mary. If the parents are to consider the greater good, the existence of a single twin is better than the eventual nonexistence of both (Savulescu & Wilkinson, 2019). Even in the presented case, the parents did agree to proceed with the operation after a thorough deliberation of all available options (Realbuto, 2020). This discussion topic presents a challenging case for both medical personnel, lawmakers, and the twins’ parents, allowing future generations to understand the consequences of their decisions better. In conclusion, the lawmakers made the correct decision, and the parents should have agreed on it without hesitation since the life of a single child is better than the inevitable loss of both twins.
References
Realbuto, M. (2020). Who should decide? The conflicting legal, ethical, and moral dilemmas surrounding the separation of conjoined twins. Seton Hall Law. Web.
Savulescu, J., & Wilkinson, D. (2019). Consequentialism and the law in medicine. In T. De Campos, J. Herring, & A. M. Phillips (Eds.), Philosophical foundations of medical law. Oxford University Press.