Twins' lawyers may demand change of venue for operation
BMJ 2000; 321 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.321.7265.853 (Published 07 October 2000) Cite this as: BMJ 2000;321:853
All rapid responses
Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed. Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles. The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not including references and author details. We will no longer post responses that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
Dr. James is right, I have not read the complete judgement. However,
the detailed content of the opinion would not change my opinion that the
rights of the parents have been disregarded. The very fact that the
parents' right to choose on behalf of their own children has been taken
away is what my opinion is all about.
Competing interests: No competing interests
Dr. Murphy has clearly not read the judgment of the court. The juges
bent over backwards to pay due regard to the rights and interests of the
parents as well as both children.
It is usually advisable to familiarise oneself with the facts before
commenting on a difficult issue.
Competing interests: No competing interests
Sadly doctors have gone and got court orders to impose medical
treatment that parents will not consent to. I have substantial evidence at
home that this goes on all the time.
As for Mary and Jodie, the minute the medical profession knew about
the complexity of their co-joining, they lost all rights to anything as
did their parents. Manchester Hospital determined to keep the feather in
their cap, doubtless other hospitals circling like vultures to undertake
surgery that leads to the death of a human life what a marvelous testimony
to mankind this is. Just one more nail in the coffin of humanity.
We have been debating this point since the intervention of Judges on
another board, the parents of other children who have suffered at the
hands of the medical profession with the blessing of the courts, have
broken their hearts for the parents and the babies. I myself am at a loss
to understand how any doctor would choose one life over another, let alone
leave deeply religious parents with the scars of decisions that had been
removed from them. Nothing but tragedy will ensue if this operation goes
ahead.
I ask that all medical professionals that read these posting please
campaign openly if you believe the decisions of three people so far
removed from society, should be allowed to go ahead.
One paediatrician has been brave enough already to state in the
public domain his own feelings about the taking of a life in order to save
another, will anyone else take our hand and form a wall around the rights
of those children, protect them, save them from harm?
Competing interests: No competing interests
What a sad case this is. The decision of the Court seems to
completely disregard the needs or rights of the parents of the children or
recognise the impact on their health. The betrayal they feel will be with
them for the rest of their lives.
The decision to separate the twins completely disregards the Hippocratic
Oath, which says "first do no harm". The decision to separate can only be
legalised euthanasia for Mary.
Why is it that the rights and values of the parents of children are
superceded by the beliefs of the physicians and surgeons involved in the
case?
And now it seems, according to the article by C.Dyer, that the doctors who
have made the application to separate the twins do not even have he
expertise to do the operation. Does this then set the precedent that any
doctor in the land, who does not agree with the decision of a child's
parents, can go to court and ask for that decision to be overturned,
whether or not that doctor has the expertise to carry out the proposed
treatment?
If Dyer's statements are correct, then surely at least the children should
have been referred to a surgeon who is capable of doing the operation
,before going to court? Then, at least it would have been known if the
operation is feasible at all.
This case, and how it has been handled, is a sad reflection on our
profession.
Competing interests: No competing interests
Re: Re: Mary and her parents have rights, too.
Mary's rights have been compromised by the cruel hand of nature and
not by the judges who had the unenviable task of deciding the fate of the
twin sisters.
I have read the judgment which is sane, compassionate and deeply
moving. Perhaps morally neither doctors nor lawyers have a right to decide
such matters but the judges were called upon to decide the legality and
not necessarily the "rightness" of the separation.
Of course parents' wishes should be taken into consideration but I
wonder if they have any more right to make life and death decisions than
doctors or lawyers.
Certainly the law recognises that there can be limits to parental rights
in such matters and the primary consideration is for the best interests of
the children.
Surely it cannot be in the best interests of Jodie to be allowed to die if
there is a chance for her to live.
Competing interests: No competing interests