Cited by 27Ethics and Legal Issues in Pediatric HealthcareEthics and bioethics in healthcareMedical and Health Sciences Research

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 16 of the 16 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 29 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.

One into two will not go: conceptualising conjoined twins

Open access
Bratton, M Q, Chetwynd, S B·2004·Journal of Medical Ethics

Abstract

This paper is written in response to controversial judicial decisions following separation surgery on conjoined twins "Jodie" and "Mary". The courts, it is argued, seem to have conceptualised the twins as "entangled singletons" requiring medical intervention to render them physically separate and thus "as they were meant to be", notwithstanding the death of the weaker twin, "Mary". In contrast, we argue that certain notions, philosophical and biological, of what human beings are intended to be, are problematic. We consider three compelling conceptualisations of conjoined twins and advocate a model that conceives them as two psychologically separate individuals who happen to share a body, the sharing of a body being integral to the individuality of each twin. While we reject an "essentialist" view of the conjoined state, a view which might render separation surgery unthinkable in all cases, we nevertheless argue against an "adversarial" interpretation of conjoined twins' respective best interests. We maintain that the physical entanglement should be regarded as a shared problem rather than one posed by one twin to the other. And if, after deliberation, separation surgery is deemed the "least detrimental alternative" or the "lesser of two evils", then there should be recognition of what conjoined twins will lose, as well as gain, through separation. The current drive to separate twins at all costs may evince a deeper unease with bodily configurations that appear to threaten the premium that the Western ethical and legal tradition places on personal sovereignty, and the physical circumscription that such sovereignty assumes.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/jme.2002.001289

Cites

16 of 16 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

73 Own interpretation · 28 Sources not found

  • Probably not a substantial claim. 77
  • It may state two separate claims as one. 33

Create a free account to see these claims.

Create a free account to see these assumptions.

14 more claims

Create a free account to see all 101 claims and every source verdict.

See all claims — free account

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

3 of 3

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Singer P . Practical ethics. [2nd ed]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993, ch 4.
  2. 1982, Nat Hist, 91, 18
  3. 1971, Philos Public Aff, 1, 47

Cited by

See all 27

Metadata

Authors
Bratton, M. Q., & Chetwynd, S. B.
Affiliations
University of Warwick (GB)
Corresponding author
Bratton, M Q
Venue
Journal of Medical Ethics
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2004-06
Volume
30
Issue
3
Pages
279-285
ISSN
  • 0306-6800 (ISSN-L)
  • 1473-4257
OpenAlex
W2096742274
Cited by
27
References
16
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2020: 1 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 2 · 2012: 3
FWCI
1.86
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Medical Ethics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DigitalGeorgetown (Georgetown University Library) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Goddard Space Flight Center
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Ethics and Legal Issues in Pediatric Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics and bioethics in healthcare
  • Social Sciences › Law › Medical and Health Sciences Research
Keywords
conjoined twins, separation surgery, individuality, essentialism, best interests, individual sovereignty, bodily integrity, twin identity, legal personality
MeSH terms
Child, Child Advocacy, Child, Preschool, Ethics, Medical, Female, United Kingdom, Homicide, Humans, Legislation, Medical, Surgical Procedures, Operative, Twins, Conjoined, Bioethical Issues, Ethical Analysis, Personhood

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-11, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-11 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review