| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| « Mar | May » | |||||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |||
| 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 |
| 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 |
| 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 |
| 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | ||
- Introduction to Sociology (959)
- Mr. Andoscia (161)
- Social Problems (883)
- Uncategorized (1180)
- 7. February 2012: EmmOvin-Changes in the American family
- 6. February 2012: Overbearing Parents
- 2. February 2012: EmmOvin-Cohabiting
- 14. January 2012: Victim's Families in Mississippi Are Upset - ConnieB
- 9. December 2011: Blogs are now Closed for the Semester
- 9. December 2011: School choice Mara Runion
- 9. December 2011: Cheatonyourspouse.com-SRC
- 9. December 2011: Gay Marriage-Joel Martin
- 9. December 2011: Gay marriges Mara Runion
- 9. December 2011: Childhood Obesity- Amanda Robinson
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
Crystal Rogers (FGCU) Conjoined Twins
I recently read about a court case that involved the separation of conjoined twins. The shocking part was that the decision to separate the two girls who were joined at the pelvis was not made by the parents, but instead it was made by the court. The parents apparently had no say in the matter because the judges invoked something known as a “utilitarian rationale”. This basically means that because of the serious medical issue at hand, the separation had to be done; even if this meant causing the immediate death of one of the twins.
“The specialists agreed that there is an 80 to 90 percent chance that the strong and alert Jodie could not survive more than a few months if she continued to support the weak heart and lungs of Mary, whose brain is underdeveloped”. As understandable as the situation is, I ultimately believe that it should have been up to the parents to decide whether or not the separation should take place. After reading about the situation, I found out that they were completely against the surgery. They did not believe that one of their children should die to enable the other one to survive. They believe that everyone has a right to live and no one has the decision to take away a life except for God.
However, as much as the parents fought the case, the court’s decision still overruled their beliefs. Due to the “medical calculus” the twin’s fate was decided by the court. Apparently Mary’s’ life was futile and they didn’t believe Jodie should suffer because of it. Some people argue the principal known as the “double effect” which states that the loss of a life when it is an unintended consequence of saving another is permitted. However, in this case the decision of ending Mary’s life was deliberate, not unintended.
In the end the surgery was performed and Mary’s life was lost. The ultimate question still stands: Is it ever okay to take one life in favor of another? I believe this answer is no. If the parents didn’t want the surgery to be performed I believe the court should have upheld their wishes. This leads me to wonder about the coercion that is going on in today’s world when the court can overrule a decision that was ultimately not theirs to make.