Re A (Children) (Conjoined Twins: Surgical Separation)
[2001] Fam 147
判决理由
The separation of conjoined twins, which would inevitably kill the weaker twin, was lawful. The operation was justified on the basis of necessity (the defence of others), as without it both twins would die. The doctors performing the operation would not be guilty of murder.
事实
Jodie and Mary were conjoined twins born in Manchester. Jodie was the stronger twin, supplying oxygenated blood to Mary. Without separation, both would die within months. With separation, Jodie had a good chance of survival but Mary would inevitably die. The parents (devout Catholics) refused consent. The hospital sought a declaration that separation would be lawful.
判决摘要
The Court of Appeal (Ward, Brooke, and Robert Walker LJJ) unanimously held that the operation should proceed, though each judge reached the conclusion by different reasoning. Ward LJ applied the doctrine of necessity and the defence of others. Brooke LJ relied on the defence of necessity as formulated by Stephen's Digest of Criminal Law. Robert Walker LJ held that the operation was analogous to the withdrawal of life support. All three judges acknowledged this was an agonising case on the boundary of the law.
关键引述
"The danger to Jodie's life is real and the danger to Mary's life is certain. The danger to Jodie can be avoided only by the danger to Mary being accelerated."
— Ward LJ
"The law must allow the defence of necessity in cases where the choice is between the certain death of both and the certain death of one."
— Brooke LJ
后续处理
A highly unusual case on its facts. Cited in discussions of the defence of necessity and the limits of the sanctity of life principle, but unlikely to arise again in identical circumstances.