I don't think I can really comment on this article. I find it too disturbing...Disabled Newborns Likely to Face Death, originally published in the AFA Journal. Granted, they are only opening the subject up for debate, and it is little surprise that Peter Singer would be offering his support. But the Church of England? The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists?A very disabled child can mean a disabled family," stated a formal submission by the college. "If life-shortening and deliberate interventions to kill infants were available, they might have an impact on obstetric decision-making, even preventing some late abortions, as some paretns would be more confident about continuing a pregnancy and taking a risk on outcome."Don't they take the Hippocratic Oath over there?
I will give no deadly medicine to any one if asked, nor suggest any such counsel; and in like manner I will not give to a woman a pessary to produce abortion.I think over here it has been summarized as, "Do no harm," but the principle is the same.
Is the emotional and financial burden of caring for a disabled child enough to warrant a "mercy killing?"
Does life have no more value than the emotional and financial value placed upon it by the parents? I think Rousseau's philosophy of cost-benefit analysis has gone way too far.
And focusing purely on the economic implications, at what point will the state-funded medical plan (or major insurance companies here in the United States) refuse to pay for treatment of a disabled child when a "more cost-effective" alternative is available through "life-shortening interventions?"
Related Tags: abortion, parenting, disabilities, euthanasia, Peter Singer
