Essay Sample on Legal Decisions: Controversial or Acceptable?

Legal decisions, however much they observe the law, can be controversial at times. This is especially true in these decisions conflict with individual or societal beliefs. There are times when making legal decisions following existing laws are acceptable without much opposition. However, ruling in topics involving life and death such as abortion, administration of euthanasia and medical dilemmas are often controversial. This controversy is mainly caused by opposing views regarding a matter of life and death among members of society. However, it is appropriate for judges to make decisions that conform to existing laws, even in such difficult situations. A typical case that was surrounded by controversy is Jodie and Mary's case, who were conjoined twins that had to undergo separation surgery. Unfortunately, undergoing this procedure meant sacrificing the life of Mary to save Jodie. The court was expected to rule this delicate matter. Ordering the case based on a law meant allowing the hospital to proceed with the surgery. However, this was a decision that the family felt was unethical because it went against their beliefs that no one has the right to take another person's life. This paper supports the argument that judges should adhere to laws while making a legal decision and disregard individual or societal wants with particular reference to Jodie and Mary's case.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

It is critical to question why laws were created in the first place while trying to answer this question. According to Waldron (par.1-3), laws are meant to provide less chaotic and systematic procedures of resolving issues in society. They offer a systematic framework of navigating through complex societal problems. Before the establishment of laws that are generally constituted in constitutions, human society suffered multiple chaos ranging from dictatorship and violation of human rights. Therefore, a judge is obliged at all times to make a ruling according to laws rather than society wishes. The law is a reference point that has been established through a series of deliberations to come up with the most appropriate decision in any situation. The problem of relying on society wishes to make a decision is the lack of consistency-for instance, the concept of what is considered morally upright changes with time, culture, and individuality. For example, abortion before the feminist movement was considered ethically inappropriate. However, the emergence of feminist movements that argued that a woman has a right to make decisions regarding her body led to the development of pro-choice activism, which supported abortion. The controversial argument between pro-life and pro-choice groups prompted many countries to adjust their laws such that abortion was considered illegal. However, it was legal in instances when it threatened a woman's life or when the fetus suffers severe abnormalities. From the illustration, it is evident that the law provides a compromise between two extreme positions. Therefore, judges should rule according to the law rather than societal or individual sentiments to ensure fairness.

Jodie and Mary's case provides insight into the complicated nature of the argument of whether judges should rule in favor of the law or according to society wants. Jodie and Mary were conjoined twins who shared a bladder and Aorta. Upon medical evaluation of the twins, medical practitioners at St Mary's Hospital in Manchester concluded that the fused twins had a few weeks or months to live in their fused status. However, Jodie could be saved through a separation surgery that would lead to Mary's death. The parents were against this decision leading to a dispute that ended in a court case between them and the hospital. The parents argued that it was morally inappropriate to sacrifice one of the twins' lives for the other. Medical practitioners at St Mary's Hospital, on the other hand, argued that it is was necessary to undertake the separation surgery to save the life of Jodie, who was healthier than Mary and ensure that she experienced quality life. Upon evaluation of facts by both sides, the judge ruled that the hospital should proceed with separation surgery to save the life of Jodie (Paris & Elias-Jones, 593-598).

The decision to have Mary and Jodie separated was more credible and practical compared to the parents' argument to leave the life of the twins to God's will. One of the critical factors in evaluating and eventually deciding any medical dilemma is the availability of scientific evidence showing that one option is better than the other. In Jodie's case, there was medical and scholarly evidence that indicated that survival of conjoined twins, especially those who shared a heart, was nil (Annas, 27). This was the case with Mary and Jodie's case since both of them shared an Aorta. In other words, Jodie has a healthy heart, but Mary's was impaired. Therefore, she relied on Jodie's heart for survival. As a result, the two would eventually die if they were not separated since the organs that they shared, especially the heart, would be overburdened. Medical literature that was available at the time of the case further showed that conjoined twins sharing a heart only survive for a short while and eventually die. However, the advancement of the field of medicine provided the opportunity for survival for such twins through surgery. Unfortunately, in the case of conjoined twins sharing a heart, separation through surgery means that one to die. In the case of Jodie and Mary, the medical fraternity felt that Jodie has more chances of survival than Mary. Unlike Mary, whose organs were mostly impaired, Jodie has a healthy lung, heart, brain, and liver (Paris & Elias-Jones, 593). Therefore, she had the possibility of living a healthy life upon separation. Furthermore, evidence-based surgical interventions to save conjoined twins in the past showed that this approach pro-longed the life of one of the twins and also gave them a quality life. Failing to undertake the surgery, on the other hand, will be an abandoning the two lives to die. Therefore, it was much better to save the life of one of the twins in Mary and Jodie's case through surgical intervention rather than letting both of them die.

The decision to separate Mary and Jodie was right in that it was sustainable. The twins in their conjoined status were dependant on each other since they shared some body organs such as the heart. Among the two, Mary was more dependent on Jodie since most of her body organs were defective. At one point, the judge during the court proceedings argued that 'Mary was weakening Jodie' since she lacked independent body organs to sustain her life. Failing to separate the twins meant that the two would require a medical caregiver who would tend to their needs all the time. Additionally, they were more likely to grow in the hospital setting; whereby they would access medical intervention when needs arose. This approach was unsustainable because it meant that Mary and Jodie's parents would have to spend a lot of money to cater for the medical bills of their children. Eventually, the two twins would die, leaving their parents financially unstable and also emotionally distorted at the loss of their children. However, the decision to permit the surgery to save Jodie was sustainable in two ways. First, the family would only have to spend money to cater for the separation of the twins and Jodie's recovery. Upon recovery, Jodie would have a healthy lifestyle hence saving the family the money they have spent to sustain the two twins in a hospital setting. Second, separation of the twins meant that Jodie would have the opportunity to achieve all the milestones of child development and eventually become an adult. The judge's decision provided Jodie with the chance to enjoy quality and independent life.

The court's ruling to have Jodie and Mary separated was the right decision because it was objective. Jodie and Mary's case was and still is complex. No one can say in the certainty that one decision is better than others. It is not like a criminal case when all parties will unite to condemn the one who committed the crime in favor of the victim. Jodie and Mary's case was so complicated, such that the judge had to ask whether Mary should be murdered to spare Jodie. Once in a while, society will find itself in such instances whereby no one side is justifiable than the other. In cases like this, objectivity should prevail over subjectivity. Being objective means the judge or the person charged with the responsibility of making a decision should assess the situation and make a choice that has a long-lasting positive impact. In Jodie and Mary's case, the judge was objective since he took the decision that spared the life of one twin rather than leaving the two of them to die. Furthermore, his choice was also more suitable because it catered for the wellbeing of both Jodie and Mary. While making the ruling, the judge noted that Mary was suffering in their conjoined status because she lacked independent organs to sustain her. Therefore, conducting the surgery that would eventually end her life would spare Mary from suffering. Similarly, this decision was suitable for Jodie because Mary, who was dependant on her organs, was weakening her. As a result, separating the two would enable Jodie to attain all the major developmental milestones in life.

In as much as the decision to separate the twins was credible, sustainable, and objective, it had several faults that made Jodie and Mary's parents hesitant to embrace it. The first one and the most obvious is its ethical and morally complex nature. As followers of the Roman Catholic Church, the twin's parents felt that no one had the right to sacrifice one life for another. The two had undertaken tremendous steps to preserve the lives of both of their children. For instance, the twin's mother decided to keep the pregnancy against medical practitioner advice to terminate it after a scan revealed that she was pregnant with conjoined twins bearing multiple defects. The two, therefore, felt that a medical intervention that would threaten the life of one of the twins should not be undertaken under any circumstances. This argument was further reinforced by a confession from the medical fraternity that Jodie, who they were trying to save through the surgery, faced a five to six percent probability of death during this procedure (Paris & Elias-Jones, 593). The parents, therefore, felt that the surgery was a medical experiment rather than a medical intervention to cater for the wellbeing of the twins. Also, evidence from similar surgeries in the past showed that the child who saved even in successful separation procedures eventually died (Annas, 28; Thomas et al., 10; Meehan, 158). A typical example was the Lakeberg twins, Amy and Angela, who shared a single hearing. The two underwent a separation a successful separation surgery whereby Angela was saved but eventually died after ten months (The New York Times, par 1-2; Boseley, par.1). The parents also feared that Jodie would not have a quality life even after the separation. This argument was based on the fact that she possessed other defects that health practitioners argued that they had to be rectified through several surgeries. As a result, there was no guarantee that the separation and the subsequent surgeries would be successful in ensuring Jodie lived a normal life. Given all the complexities discussed above regarding Jodie and Mary's case, the parents felt that it was much better not to subject the twins to any medical interventions that would compromise the lives of both.

In conclusion, the law should always prevail while making legal decisions. This is not to say that individual or societal wants are not import...