Kent Catholic Health
The newsletter of the Kent Branch of the Guild
of Catholic Doctors.
PO Box 93, Sidcup, Kent DA15 7ZB
email:- kentguild@atreloar.globalnet.co.uk
January 2001
JODIE AND MARY;- IMPLICATIONS FOR UK LAW AND THE CONTRIBUTION OF THE CHURCH
At a meeting of the Kent branch of the Guild of Catholic doctors, Dr Philip Howard, Consultant and Senior Lecturer in Gastro-enterology, and Anne Scanlon, Head of education and media relations for London Life spoke of the implications of the case of Mary and Jodie.
Utilitarianism the central principle
Speaking first, Dr Howard said that Court of Appeal judgement, which ran to 96 pages, used complex moral and legal arguments which were at times convoluted and at points contradictory. They set precedents in English law and used, as their key concept, utilitarianism. The judgements made an attempt to achieve the greatest good for the greatest number, but by doing so, accepted that one person may have to die for the good of another. Moreover the moral judgement of whether the action was right or wrong relied upon retrospective, rather than prior analysis of effect.
The medical situation
Jody and Mary were born on 8th August 2000. their parents, devout Catholics refused the abortion which they were offered: the children were born joined at the pelvis with fused spines and bladder, but separate bowels. Mary relied upon Jody for her blood supply as Mary’s heart did not function well.
Judgement claimed that killing of one for the benefit of another may be justified.
The court of appeal agreed that Mary would die as a result of surgery, and applied an argument that it was in Mary’s best interests that she be killed. It was construed that Mary was better separated from Jodie and dead than she would be alive and conjoined. The importance of the judgement was that, in UK case law, the killing of one may be justified for the benefit of another. In short, necessity can now be applied to murder. The principle of best interests were therefore shown to be "highly elastic" said Dr Howard. By arguing that the best interests of Mary were achieved by being separated from Jodie, the Court concluded that Mary was best off dead. Dr Howard pointed out that the doctrine of necessity has been applied in Holland to kill on account of physical as well as mental suffering, and that the principle of necessity used here, was, in many ways very similar to this.
Parental rights
Finally, Dr Howard pointed out that the case demonstrated serious problems for parental rights in today’s courts. The parents made a clear choice that the children should not be separated. This choice was very reasonable, and showed no evidence of neglect for either child. The parents were "in no sense negligent". And yet the judge held that the Children’s Act of 1989 meant that a decision must be made and that that decision need not relate to the parents responsibly expressed wishes. In effect, the reasonable views of Catholic parents can now be overridden in UK law.
Positive messages and developments
In the face of such worrying legal rulings, it might be thought that the case held nothing of hope for those who value life. And yet, as Anne Scanlon pointed out, there was a lot of good news and work thrown up by the case. The Pro-Life Alliance worked very hard and was well heard in the case of the twins. Anne Scanlan congratulated them on their splendid work. [Editors note;- the Guild of Catholic Doctors also put in a huge effort with press releases and a lot of other work. Our Master, was interviewed several times on national radio and television, helping the message in support of both twins to get across]. Few knew nothing of the case, and very many were persuaded that Mary’s life and the lives of those like her should be fully respected.
Archbishop Cormac Murphy O’Connor
Most importantly, Archbishop Murphy O’Connor had submitted evidence to the Court that had changed the judgement of the High Court (that because of her disabilities Mary was not a person with rights), to the view that Mary had full human rights and dignity. The Archbishop had said
- Human life is Sacred
- Bodily integrity may not be invaded
- There is no duty to adopt particular measures to preserve life if these are particularly burdensome
- The right not to be killed is the core of the sanctity of life
- The judgement of the Court should not rely on the distinctions made in Bland
- Parental refusal for operation involved no injustice to either of the children.
The Archbishop then pleaded that the children be allowed to go to Italy.
Alternative care from Catholic sources
Care for the twins was made available in Italy by Catholic bishops in Italy and in addition Life was able to offer a place at Zoe’s place. Zoe’s place, set up by Life, is the UK’s first children’s hospice, opened in 1995 where every child is "seen as a gift and lives life to the full" said Anne. It caters for babies and children up to the age of 4 with severe and life shortening illnesses, and has a staff to patient ratio of 1 to 1. It provides respite care and palliative care. Anne said that the Life organisation would have wished to give both Mary and Jodie the best possible care which fully respected them and which would give them both the right to a dignified death.