SPUC General Secretary, Paul Tully said: "We are encouraged that there
appears to be hope for the survival of both the babies, and we would
question why a decision to try to separate them has apparently been
taken, and announced, at such an early stage. The doctors must be well
aware that if the parents objected to surgery they can ask the courts
to overrule the parents. This is what happened in the case of the
Maltese couple in Manchester in 2000*. We are very concerned that the
parents will face enormous pressure if they try to change their mind
and save both their babies.
"We fully support the use of the best surgical and medical
skills to help the twins, but we would urge the doctors to observe the
principle that they should not do harm in the hope that good may come
of it. They should not end the life of one twin for the sake of the
other.
"A parallel could be drawn where doctors had two unrelated patients,
one dying of liver failure, with a good heart, and one dying of heart
failure, with a good liver. By the logic applied here, doctors could
decide to remove the good organ from the weaker patient in order to
save the stronger. This would deny equal value and dignity of the
weaker patient.
"In the case of Natasha and Courtney, the doctors seem to be taking the
approach that a 'normal' life for one is better than both living but
conjoined. What does this say of people with disabilities? Are they of
less value than others?" concluded Mr Tully.
* The court of appeal ruled in the case of Gracie and Rosie Attard (the Maltese conjoined twins, known as "Jodie and Mary" in court), that the girls should be separated in spite the fact that this would cause the death of Rosie, and in spite of their parents' objection.