Name: IRENE C.

CASTILLO
Course/Year/Block: BS ARCHITECTURE 2A Date: 04/05/2022

Case Study
I. Conjoined twins Angela and Amy Lakeberg,
both attached from breast to belly, shared one
liver and one heart. There was no chance of
survival for either if they remained in the
conjoined state. Their parents decided to save
one at the expense of the other. At Children’s
Hospital in Philadelphia, surgeons deliberately
cut off circulation to Amy to salvage the heart
for Angela. British courts reached a similar
decision in 2000, over the protests of the
parents, who didn’t want the twins separated
because it meant the inevitable death of one, even though not having the operation
would be the death of both. The court said it boldly: to save one child, the doctors had
to kill another.

What is your reaction/evaluation on this case?

The moral and ethical case of the conjoined twins has set me off in a turmoil of
dilemma and debate on whether the twins should be separated or not. With possible
but unrecorded exceptions, cases like this will consistently involve sacrifice
separation. However, in the ideology of Justice as Fairness, it is not just or fair to
make one twin so much better off at the expense of the other. The surgical operation
that takes advantage of the natural inequality between the twins to save or further
enhance Angela’s life prospects intensifies the natural inequality, which appears
unfair. Although this concern for just or fair equality has considerable weight, it is
still reasonable to think it outweighs the one party that wins a lot caused by unfair
inequality. In contrast, the other party loses comparatively little, as is the situation
concerning Angela and Amy. It should be acknowledged that such weighing of gains
in terms of life prospects against losses in terms of justness or fairness has to be done
intuitively and cannot be shown to be objectively right or wrong.

Do you agree with the court’s decision: To save one child, the doctors had to kill
another? Explain your answer.

No. While this might seem to be on the right track in a utilitarian perspective,
considerations of justness or fairness oppose this reason of maximizing the life
assurance of the twins taken together. If you weigh the loss in respective life
assurance for Amy against the gain for Angela, the latter outweighs the former by
far. Moreover, there is no justification for holding that Angela has more of a right to
the healthier organs in the body that the twins share. Angela is not more of an
“owner” of the heart than Amy is. Neither has a more vital right to the shared organs,
which are insufficient to sustain the life of both of them.