This is not as if the twins were separate, and Jodie, an otherwise healthy baby with kidney failure, needed a kidney from Mary, who was terminally ill from heart disease. Rather, they are freeing Jodie, whose organs are otherwise in working order, from the body of another person with whom she has become entwined. Nobody, certainly not a child, can be required to act as permanent life-support for another person. Third, it is useful to consider what weight should be given to the family's religious objections. In terms of both ethics and American law, objections should not be given extra deference because they are based in religion.
Religious beliefs are only one way of describing a deeply held set of values.
Parents who are atheists surely love their children just as much, and can experience as much pain when their choices are overridden, as parents who are religious. Parents' rights to direct the course of a child's education and look after the child' s welfare are no more worthy of respect because they are couched in religious terms. In the same way, parents' religious beliefs should not receive less deference merely because they do not agree with church authority or the majority of their co-religionists. Visiting Research Fellow in Genetics, Ethics and Law, Center for the Study of Law, Science and Technology, Arizona State University Opinions expressed in Ethics Forum reflect the views of the authors and do not constitute official policy statements of the American Medical Association. Actual names, addresses and affiliations of individuals whose queries are used will not be published.