The separation of the Maltese conjoint twins, Mary and Jodie, is a complex moral issue to which there was no direct answer that can be found. The question is how do you decide what is moral? Can it possibly be right to separate Jodie from sister Mary when we know that if this happens Mary must inevitably die? And how do we balance the rights of Jodie against the rights of Mary? Do we purely look at the basis of strength and survival?
             The parents refused to give consent for their daughters to be separated and believed as Catholics that it was the duty of God, not doctors to determine the length of their children's lives. The Hippocratic Oath is a vow made by doctors where responsibility is undertaken to strive in curing all patients to their full ability. Although not always successful, in the case of the separation of the Siamese Twins, this was thought to be the best course of action having the professional knowledge to suggest and consider the most probable outcomes. Really there is no absolute moral judgment that can be made at all. The moral choice made is perhaps usually measured by believing that more pleasure for more people as a consequence of the action is the correct option to select, and having one twin survive for the sacrifice of another seemed better than having both die.
             In Christian thinking it is never right to kill one person so that another person may benefit The Catholic Church immediately declared that it was ethically wrong to separate Mary from Jodie as it would be, in effect, killing Mary. The Bible is quite clear and indisputable: "Thou shalt not kill" says the Commandment, and we are obliged to see that killing is wrong in any and all circumstances. Others thought that it was immoral not to separate them as it was murder to let Jodie die because of the weakness of her sister. The philosophy of utilitarianism says that our aim should always be to maximise the sum total of happiness in the w...