Parents must occasionally make agonizing decisions about their children. Few of these decisions, however, could be more difficult than that of the parents of the conjoined (better known as "Siamese") twins in Britain.

The baby girls are joined at the hips. One baby has non-functioning lungs and heart and depends on her sister for survival. Doctors say the viable sister could have a long life if the twins were separated. Whether that would be a healthy or normal life, no one knows. The other sister, if separated from her twin, would die immediately. Together, the functioning heart and lungs of the one will probably not sustain the two for more than a few months.

The heartbreak for the parents is unimaginable. A British court has ordered surgery to separate the twins. Their parents have appealed, preferring not to make the terrible choice that one of their babies will die. They cite their religious beliefs that forbid killing one of the babies.

Under British law, the welfare of the child is paramount. But, which child's welfare? The one who would live or the one who would die? The tragedy points up the painful choices modern medicine sometimes gives us. While, in this case, it can save one child, it cannot provide the other with the heart and lungs she needs.

I think I know what I would do if these were my children. I would want the viable baby to have every chance to live a full life. I would choose surgery. But, these are not my children. It is really impossible to know what I would do if I were actually these babies' parent.

What I do believe is that the parents' wishes should not be ignored. Here again, we are on difficult moral ground. Where do you draw the line? I believe adamantly that women have the right to determine whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term. I also believe just as adamantly that children have the right to grow up in a loving home, free from neglect or abuse. I want the law to step in when a child is beaten or starved or traumatized by her or his parents.

It's a bit more troubling when religious views dictate a child's care. I think parents should be able to decide not to vaccinate their children if their religious beliefs forbid medical care. But, I have much more trouble when parents allow a child to die of pneumonia or accidental injuries, conditions that medicine can cure.

As a staunch believer in freedom of speech and freedom of religion, I don't have any easy answers to these tragic ethical dilemmas. I know what I would do. But, do I have the right to dictate to another parent what she should do? Does a court have that right, outside of criminal abuse?

I come down on the side of letting these babies' parents decide whether to separate the twins or leave them to their fate. My choice would be different from theirs. But, how lucky I am not to have to make that choice.

If there are any lessons for all of us as we struggle with our own ethical dilemmas, perhaps they are these. Laws should define criminal conduct. They should reflect our societal views on ethics and morality. But, they must give flexibility to courts and families to make extraordinarily difficult decisions in extraordinary circumstances. They must allow us on occasion-I can't tell you just when-to rely on the guidance of our religious and moral values in cases of life and death.

With the twins, separating the babies dooms one sister. A murder under British law. If the babies are left conjoined, both will die. Is that also murder? The parents are listening to the guidance of their religion and their hearts. Is there a court that has the right to deny them that? And what are the circumstances that should require a court to intervene? Perhaps, like many personal and terrible decisions, this is best left a private matter.