Skip to main content

Is It Ethically Permissible to Separate Conjoined Twins? Murder, Mutilation, and Consent

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Contemporary Controversies in Catholic Bioethics

Part of the book series: Philosophy and Medicine ((CSBE,volume 127))

Abstract

This chapter looks at the ethics of separating conjoined twins by first establishing the individual dignity of each twin in light of both philosophical reasoning and how the Church has addressed such cases throughout its history—e.g., each twin being baptized separately. The essay goes on to then analyzes the moral permissibility of separating Jodie and Mary in light of the intentionality involved. The chapter concludes that, since there is no course of action that could benefit both twins, and only one of them is harmed while the other is benefitted, it is permissible to separate the two for the intended end of benefitting Jodie, while tolerating the foreseen side-effect that Mary will die as her separated body will be unable to sustain itself. However, that it would have been improper for Jodie and Mary’s parents to have consented to the separation since they should be equally concerned about the survival and welfare of both children. The fact that it was a judge’s order that ultimately determined the twins’ respective fates was more ethically appropriate.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    Resnick’s (2013, p. 344) translation of Augustine (1955, bk. 16, cap. 8, ll. 53–6): “ante annos aliquot, nostra certe memoria, in oriente duplex homo natus est superioribus membris, inferioribus simplex. nam duo erant capita, duo pectora, quattuor manus, uenter autem unus, et pedes duo, sicut uni homini; et tamdiu uixit, ut multos ad eum uidendum fama contraheret.”

  2. 2.

    This medieval debate finds an analog in contemporary discussions of human identity and individuality. For example, Eric Olson (2014) examines questions such as whether conjoined twins are two organisms but only one person.

  3. 3.

    I have attempted to answer these questions in Kaczor (2003).

  4. 4.

    My own views may be found in Kaczor (2001, 2007).

  5. 5.

    I leave aside a vexing case. What should be done if one adult conjoined twin wishes for separation and the other does not want separation? In cases of profoundly conjoined twins , it could be like Jodie and Mary that both will die if they are not separated, but one can survive and the other die more quickly if they are separated. In such cases, as well as others, what should be done if the twins, both consenting adults, disagree with each other? I leave this good question here unanswered.

  6. 6.

    I am grateful to the James Madison Program at Princeton University for the support provided in writing this essay.

References

  • Augustine. 1955. In De civitate Dei, ed. Bernhard Dombart and Alfons Kalb. Turnhout: Brepols.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brock, Stephen. 2008. Veritatis Splendor §78, St. Thomas, and (Not Merely) Physical Objects of Moral Acts. Nova et Vetera, English Edition 6(1): 1–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dewan, Lawrence. 2008. St. Thomas, Rhonheimer, and the object of the Human Act. Nova et Vetera, English Edition 6(1): 63–112.

    Google Scholar 

  • Finnis, John. 2010. The other F-word. The Public Discourse, October 20. http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2010/10/1849/. Accessed 21 July 2016.

  • Finnis, John, Germain Grisez, and Joseph Boyle. 2001. ‘Direct’ and ‘indirect’: A reply to critics of our action theory. The Thomist 65: 1–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flannery, Kevin. 2008. Aristotle and human movements. Nova et Vetera, English Edition 6(1): 113–138.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, Daniel. 2006. Stumbling on happiness. New York: Vintage Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaczor, Christopher. 2003. The tragic case of Jodie and Mary: Questions about separating conjoined twins. The Linacre Quarterly 70: 159–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2007. Intention, foresight, and mutilation: A response to Giebel. International Philosophical Quarterly 47: 477–482.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2015. The ethics of abortion: Women’s rights, human life, and the question of justice, 2nd ed. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaveny, M. Cathleen. 2001. The case of conjoined twins: Embodiment, individuality, and dependence. Theological Studies 62: 753–786.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2007. Virtuous decision-makers and incompetent patients: The case of the conjoined twins. In A just and true love: Feminism at the frontiers of theological ethics, ed. Maura A. Ryan and Brian F. Linnane, 338–368. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kobylarz, Krzysztof. 2014. History of treatment of conjoined twins. Anaesthesiology Intensive Therapy 46: 116–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, M., A. Gosain, and D. Becker. 2011. The bioethics of separating conjoined twins in plastic surgery. Plastic Reconstructive Surgery 128: 328e–334e.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Long, Steven A. 2008. Veritatis Splendor §78 and the Teleological Grammar of the Moral Act. Nova et Vetera, English Edition 6(1): 139–156.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Brien, Matthew. B., and Robert C. Koons. 2012. Objects of intention: A hylomorphic critique of the new natural law theory. American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly 86(4): 655–703.

    Google Scholar 

  • Olson, Eric T. 2014. The metaphysical implications of conjoined twinning. Southern Journal of Philosophy 52(S1): 24–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Resnick, Irven Michael. 2013. Conjoined twins, medieval biology, and evolving reflection on individual identity. Viator 44: 343–368.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seligman, Martin E.P. 2011. Flourish: A visionary new understanding of happiness and well-being. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tollefsen, Christopher. 2013. Response to Robert Koons and Matthew O’Brien’s “Objects of Intention”. American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly 87(4): 751–778.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christopher Kaczor .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Kaczor, C. (2017). Is It Ethically Permissible to Separate Conjoined Twins? Murder, Mutilation, and Consent. In: Eberl, J. (eds) Contemporary Controversies in Catholic Bioethics. Philosophy and Medicine(), vol 127. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-55766-3_10

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics