Two Conjoined Babies Case Study

If you had two conjoined babies who shared certain organs, would it be alright to operate on them if this killed one of them, so that the other could live? This is the question that I am going to be answering in this essay.

This question is a real one because of the recent case of a pair of conjoined babies from a poor country, whose parents didn't want to separate them. In that case the court ruled that they must be separated. I agree with the decision of the court. Parents should not be able to say what happens to their baby's just because they are their parents. After all, what if the parents disagreed? Then what would you do? Another problem here is that once you let parents decide these kinds of things, then they might just decide in ways to suit themselves. What if the parents really …show more content…
Suppose a healthy man comes in to visit his friend, and the doctor's grabbed him and cut him up to divide his organs amongst the others. We wouldn't think that was right. So what is the difference here, because isn't his a case in which you kill one person so that you do not have to let five die? I think that the real problem is that you have no need to cut up the healthy person. After all it is nothing to do with him. What you could do is to take one of the five people who was sick any way, and cut him up. That way you'd have no need to cut up the healthy person. So this isn't like the baby case. There the babies are already in there together; it's not as though one is just visiting the other one.

So, in conclusion, I think that the baby case is like the trolley case. There isn't any difference between killing someone and letting them die. Only by operating can we save one of the babies. That is the way that we will maximize the happiness of the greatest number. The judges were right. We ought to