{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03403755868544601, 'fraction_numerical': 0.007042253521126761, 'mean_word_length': 5.365671641791045, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Logical separation? Conjoined twins, slippery slopes and resource allocation

The recent decision in Re A (Conjoined Twins: Medical Treatment) [2001] 1 FLR 1 to separate 'Jodie' and 'Mary' might have far-reaching implications. Despite the Court of Appeal's protestations to the contrary, the ruling, and in particular the reasoning regarding 'best interests' and the lawfulness of separation, must have set a precedent. Perhaps most problematically, it appears that the court's reasoning can be employed to justify killing one patient in order that some other(s)might benefit from the resources currently devoted to her or him. This logically required extension might not be met with such a radical ruling in practice; nevertheless, its very possibility presents a threat to legal coherence, in view of the obvious conflict with other legal principles.