A dilemma of biblical proportions

For those who may not know the full story of the Siamese twins, Jodie and Mary, the facts are these. Their parents are Maltese and, when it was discovered that they were expecting Siamese twins, they decided to come to England to have the babies. Once here, it was quickly discovered that the babies presented grave difficulties and they were offered an abortion. This they refused, as was their right, and the woman was delivered by Caesarian section of two little girls who were so inextricably conjoined that doctors said they could not both survive. This fact, at least, was indisputable since the weaker twin, Mary, had neither heart nor lungs that were strong enough to support her alone and she was, furthermore, brain-damaged.

The stronger baby, Jodie, on the other hand, was thought to stand a reasonable chance on her own and the doctors decided it was in her interest to be separated from her sister. The parents refused their permission for the operation, however, and the case was taken first to the High Court and then to the Court of Appeal, in order to decide if the wishes of the parents should be paramount or whether the only child who could survive should be allowed her chance to live.

It was an agonising decision for the judges and, it must be said in all fairness, they did not come to their conclusion lightly. More than one admitted to having sleepless nights and to shedding tears as they considered the case from every angle; the rights of the parents, the rights of the children, the morality of the choices they were considering and the implications for future cases.

In the end it was decided that the operation to separate the children could go ahead even though the doctors had already said that the weaker twin could not possibly survive being separated from her stronger sister. The operation lasted fifteen hours and, at the end of it, Mary was dead and her sister had been, with incredible skill, "reassembled" as a whole baby. Poorly at first, she has made good progress so far and is reported to be showing an unusually tenacious grasp of life. The parents have asked for privacy and silence from the media in order to recover themselves after the ordeal, and this they have had.

So. what are we to make of it all? The new archbishop said that such an operation can never be sanctioned because of the principle of the sanctity of life; no doubt he was right to say so. The cacophony of comment, both religious and anti-religious, that accompanied the proceedings every step of the way, made clear the irreconcilable attitudes held by both sides and-at the centre of it all-the parents wept for the little daughter they lost and are, no doubt, praying for the survival of the one who was saved.

In morally confused times like these, it is easy to see this agonising predicament as standing four-square at a crossroad. In one direction lies trust and acceptance of whatever God sends, and the other leads-where?

It is no good trying to argue that this case makes it easier to destroy future children who might be born in such a way: the case is so rare that there is little chance of another such occurring again in the lifetime of any of the protagonists.

It has been passionately argued, though, that the decision will further diminish respect for human life. However, this ignores the fact that, in cases of multiple conceptions, the "unwanted" embryos have been routinely culled in the womb, without any of the discussion and passion that this case has provoked. Good heavens! The very essence of our abortion legislation is predicated upon the idea that what the mother wants is paramount, the right to life of the child she is carrying is as nothing. This happens thousands of times a year, without making the slightest impact upon the public conscience. There is no highroad to destruction in this scenario that has not been trod a million times already, without a backward glance.

One difference in this case is that the parents did not want one of their daughters to be sacrificed for the other. Their wishes did not prevail, although applying to a court to take away their right was a necessary procedure. This has happened on several occasions to allow the child of Jehovah's Witnesses to receive a blood transfusion; and once to allow a Down's Syndrome child to have an operation that the parents opposed, since it would prolong her life. In these cases, too, there was moral inconsistency; but those who argued for parental rights to be paramount were obliged to feel relief that there was a court which could set them aside.

Human affairs can be infinitely difficult and subtle, with a whole background of needs, motives and emotions that have to be considered in coming to a conclusion. That is why the medieval church evolved the twiceyearly dramas that became known as the "Mystery Plays," which enacted all that was known, or could be imaginatively ascribed to the principal players in the drama of Christ's life and death. By that means ordinary people, unused to theology or philosophical speculation, could be brought to understand what was involved in following the tenets of their Faith. These plays were the foundation of our dramatic tradition; Shakespeare and all the great dramatists used "the play" to describe and explain character in action, and to refine and give coherence to our feelings.

Indeed, the much-criticised tendency of the media to "dramatise" stories in the news shows the same desire to point to a moral by means of a story. In an age that is characterised by the quantity rather than quality in its artistic life, we have to be grateful for anything that moves our hearts towards understanding.

So let us look again at the facts of this case, seen in another light. The parents of the twins decided to leave their country and to go somewhere that allows abortion but that also has excellent children's hospitals. They would certainly have known that they would be offered abortion; they must also have known that if there was any chance of saving the children, that chance would be greater here.

So, paradox number one is that a country that allows unborn children to be indiscriminately killed on the say-so of their mothers also produces men and women who are devoted to the welfare of babies. They are just not the same men and women. The parents must also have known, from the endless consultations that centred on their children, that the doctors and nurses wanted above all else to save their children if it were possible. Scans would have revealed how little chance Mary had of surviving on her own, and it is not credible that they would not have been told what might happen. They could have gone home then if they had simply been resigned to losing both of their children: they didn't go because there was still hope-and who can honestly blame them?

They did what they had to do, and refused to give permission for one of their daughters to be sacrificed for the other. That was their duty; nevertheless, they had put themselves where that could not be the end of it. The courts decided that-rather than lose both-one child should be sacrificed that the other should live. It was one of those terrible decisions that no one can ever make in a vacuum. No parents should ever have to decide which of their children must die to allow the other to live: yet it is a decision that sometimes parents have to make. Which child to give the last remaining morsel of food to; which child to let fall in order to retain the strength to hold the other-- these are all heart-breaking decisions that no policy or morality can be founded upon. They just happen; and the mother will make her case with God, in the privacy of her own heart, later.

The doctors were in rather the same position. Far from being regarded as heroes of their profession before the operation, newspapers speculated that they were in a no-win position. If both babies died they would be excoriated as little better than well-intentioned murderers. And if one survived but was handicapped and wretched, they would be doubly blamed for the death of one and the misery of the other. It took some courage in those circumstances for them to go ahead and take responsibility for what they were prepared to risk their reputations in trying to do. In truth, it would have been easier for all concerned just to let the children quietly fade away together.

So, in this drama, virtue was displayed by both sides and was mutually acknowledged. There was a real dilemma-of biblical-story proportions-- as most people understood. The public held their breath when the babies were operated upon and no doubt many prayers were said for the family, by people who had never before given a thought to the subject of other peoples' children. Its effect was to bring serious, ethical discussion into public life and at a level that could be understood and appreciated by everyone. This discussion in no way devalued but enhanced the sanctity of life. Something which has been regarded for a long time as simply a woman's decision, and the business of nobody else, was suddenly discovered to be replete with significance.

Safe in the arms of Jesus, as no doubt little Mary is: her death did more than simply allow her sister to live.

Lynette Burrows is a well-known English educator as well as a print and broadcast journalist. Her latest book, The Fight for the Family, was published in 1998 (Family Education Trust, Family Publications, Oxford, England).

Copyright Human Life Foundation, Incorporated Winter 2001
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved