COMMENSAL ISSUE 105

Hello Theo,

I've been taking Commensal for some years now, and have been finally goaded into making a contribution, however lowly, as ethical questions are to me the only ones worth discussing.

1. Some social worker must have got together with the poor parents to create that part of their argument (Jodie's possibly limited life in her country of birth due to poor medical care etc) on why not to proceed with the operation - to my mind that weakened their argument to leave alone rather than strengthen it - the other arguments were strong enough and this may have affected the judges' decision (I am a severely lapsed Catholic)
2. The legal arguments - at no stage does it seem to me that the courts considered the point that they were making the EXACT OPPOSITE decision to that which the courts of the parents' own country would have made - how did they have jurisdiction? why did the parents not just take their babies home? Would they have been stopped at the airport?
3. The arrogance of the doctors in assuming that something HAD to be done (Jeremy's piece about the reluctance of doctors to operate is new to me). I have no direct evidence but have read in the (intelligent) press of the 'Cyclops' babies born due to the use of anti-miscarriage drugs and the demands of their mothers that they be kept alive, against all reason, in order to satisfy the mothers' longing for a child! Whose interests are we really talking about here, that of the child or the supposed interests of the parents (even if they don't recognise them).......which leads on to
4. Jeremy's point about the baby born specifically to provide bone-marrow for its sibling - on hearing which I also felt moral repugnance - and I note you made no reply.

In short, I suppose I am arguing :-

1. we must accept that we are organic creatures not machines and that things can go wrong
2. a human life belongs to itself and to no other

Jane Allen

Jane : Good to hear from you and thank you for making this first foray into philosophical debate - you should make a habit of it ! I agree that the ethical discussions are the most worthwhile, though if we are to have grounds for our ethical prejudices we need to have some metaphysical and even epistemological underpinnings. Oh well, on to the philosophical problem...

1. Could you clarify what you mean here ? I don't know the full background to the case - ie. why the mother came to this country. I've presumed it was simply so she and the twins had a better chance of surviving the birth, though maybe there was some thinking ahead done by the others involved on what to do next. What is your point, though ? What argument are you talking about ? Please bear in mind that your readers probably won't look back at the previous discussion, so what you say must stand on its own.
2. These are legal rather than philosophical questions (indeed, the whole debate has legal cross-currents, and there's no necessary connection between points of law and points of ethics). I presume the English court felt it had to make a decision according to English law as Jodie & Mary were born in England. What the ruling might have been have been in another country is irrelevant. Presumably the state has some legal responsibility for those born in this country, though I don't know whether this is the case (do you?). As stated, it would be a legal not a moral responsibility. It did sound as though some of the law was being made as the case went along - as has to be the situation where there is no precedent (though this would not be the case with expatriation of those born in the UK). Where the law is being made, rather than followed, presumably the current moral climate has to betaken into account - as the intention is that the law and consensus morality should bear some resemblance - though I don't know how judges do this.
3. I agree that the interests of the child should be taken into account in these cases. That's why I support the intervention on behalf of Jodie even though this overrides the parents' wishes. Why do you describe the doctors' interventionist stance as "arrogance" ? Isn't it rather fundamental to being a doctor to be in the business of trying to save lives ? We've already been through the loop of "not being able to save both", so I'll not rehearse that argument again here. Are you serious about women being attached to their "Cyclops" babies purely because of a need for a child, rather than for the welfare of that child, however malformed ? Jeremy raised the issue that, given once we're dead (on his view) we know nothing, so don't experience having lost out on life, that therefore we ought to give up on some hopeless cases and not preserve life at all costs. I agree with this, but think that it ought to be viewed from the prospective perspective of the individual -ie. what is the sum of utility of life to that individual (always taking into account whether society can bear the support costs).
4. Why were you upset by this case ? There are presumably worse reasons to be conceived ? And would this have been the only reason ? I made no reply to Jeremy for two reasons - firstly, one never has the last word with Jeremy (!) and discussions have to stop somewhere. Secondly, there was very little background information to go on.

Best wishes,

Theo