Skip to content Skip to navigation
University of Warwick
  • Study
  • |
  • Research
  • |
  • Business
  • |
  • Alumni
  • |
  • News
  • |
  • About

University of Warwick
Publications service & WRAP

Highlight your research

  • WRAP
    • Home
    • Search WRAP
    • Browse by Warwick Author
    • Browse WRAP by Year
    • Browse WRAP by Subject
    • Browse WRAP by Department
    • Browse WRAP by Funder
    • Browse Theses by Department
  • Publications Service
    • Home
    • Search Publications Service
    • Browse by Warwick Author
    • Browse Publications service by Year
    • Browse Publications service by Subject
    • Browse Publications service by Department
    • Browse Publications service by Funder
  • Statistics
  • Help & Advice
University of Warwick

The Library

  • Login

One into two will not go: conceptualising conjoined twins

Tools
- Tools
+ Tools

Bratton, M. Q. (Mark Q.) and Chetwynd, S. B. (Susan Beryl). (2004) One into two will not go: conceptualising conjoined twins. JOURNAL OF MEDICAL ETHICS, 30 (3). pp. 279-285. ISSN 0306-6800

Full text not available from this repository.
Official URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/jme.2002.001289

Abstract

This paper is written in response to controversial judicial decisions following separation surgery on conjoined twins "Jodie'' and "Mary''. The courts, it is argued, seem to have conceptualised the twins as "entangled singletons'' requiring medical intervention to render them physically separate and thus "as they were meant to be'', notwithstanding the death of the weaker twin, "Mary''. In contrast, we argue that certain notions, philosophical and biological, of what human beings are intended to be, are problematic. We consider three compelling conceptualisations of conjoined twins and advocate a model that conceives them as two psychologically separate individuals who happen to share a body, the sharing of a body being integral to the individuality of each twin. While we reject an "essentialist'' view of the conjoined state, a view which might render separation surgery unthinkable in all cases, we nevertheless argue against an "adversarial'' interpretation of conjoined twins' respective best interests. We maintain that the physical entanglement should be regarded as a shared problem rather than one posed by one twin to the other. And if, after deliberation, separation surgery is deemed the "least detrimental alternative'' or the "lesser of two evils'', then there should be recognition of what conjoined twins will lose, as well as gain, through separation. The current drive to separate twins at all costs may evince a deeper unease with bodily configurations that appear to threaten the premium that the Western ethical and legal tradition places on personal sovereignty, and the physical circumscription that such sovereignty assumes.

Item Type: Journal Article
Subjects: B Philosophy. Psychology. Religion > BJ Ethics
R Medicine
H Social Sciences > HM Sociology
H Social Sciences
Journal or Publication Title: JOURNAL OF MEDICAL ETHICS
Publisher: B M J PUBLISHING GROUP
ISSN: 0306-6800
Date: 1 June 2004
Volume: 30
Number: 3
Number of Pages: 7
Page Range: pp. 279-285
Identification Number: 10.1136/jme.2002.001289
Publication Status: Published
URI: http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/id/eprint/32594

Data sourced from Thomson Reuters' Web of Knowledge

Request changes to a record

Actions (login required)

View Item View Item
twitter

Email us: publications@warwick.ac.uk
Contact Details
About Us