How did the court address the morality of not assisting in the survival of a conjoined twin in In Re A?

In the case of In Re A, the court faced a complex ethical dilemma surrounding the survival of conjoined twins, where one twin was in a position where their continued existence posed a threat to the other. The court ultimately recognized that failing to intervene would result in the death of one twin and potentially risk the life of the other; thus, it grappled with the moral implications of allowing a preventable death.

The court concluded that permitting one twin to die, when a medical solution existed, could be seen as immoral. This view reflects a broader societal expectation of duty to preserve life whenever possible. The decision underscored the importance of moral considerations, contextualized within the legal framework, as the court determined that action should be taken to save the life of the twin who could survive, thereby prioritizing the moral imperative to assist in preserving life where feasible.

The moral dimensions of the case played a critical role in the court's reasoning, differentiating it from purely legal or economic considerations, and emphasizing that ethical judgment is central in such profound cases.