|
''Re A (conjoined twins)'' () 2 WLR 480 is a Court of Appeal decision on the separation of conjoined twins. The case raised several legal, ethical and religious dilemmas including whether it would be permissible to kill one of the children to save the other, and whether it was permissible to act against the wishes of the twins' parents. Gracie and Rosie Attard, who were born on 8 August 2000, were conjoined twins who were joined at the abdomen. During legal proceedings, the twins were given the public pseudonyms ''Jodie'' and ''Mary'', respectively. The medical evidence indicated that Gracie was the stronger sibling who was sustaining the life of Rosie. Rosie had only survived birth due to a shared common artery that enabled her sister Gracie to oxygenate blood for both twins. If surgically separated Gracie had a 94% survival rate but Rosie was guaranteed to die. However if they were left conjoined then Gracie's health, which was already rapidly deteriorating, was predicted to fail before they were six months old. Gracie's death would inevitably result in Rosie's. ==Judgment== At first instance, Mr Justice Johnson was left to decide the case without any direct precedents to guide him but reasoned by analogy with Airedale NHS Trust v Bland where it was declared acceptable to remove life support. Johnson ruled that separation would not be murder but a case of "passive euthanasia" in which food and hydration would be withdrawn.〔 〕 The Court of Appeal rejected this analysis but the three judges who presided over the case gave very different legal reasoning. Lord Justice Alan Ward invoked the concept of self-defence suggesting that "If () could speak she would surely protest, ''Stop it, (), you're killing me.''"〔 Lord Justice Brooke relied upon R v Dudley and Stephens and invoked necessity as a defence. Lord Justice Robert Walker focused upon the intention of the surgeons in concluding that surgery could go ahead.〔 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Re A (conjoined twins)」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|