The Church of England has endorsed the idea of infant euthanasia that was propose by one of Great Britain's medical colleges.
Church leaders want doctors to be given the right to withhold treatment from seriously disabled newborn babies in exceptional circumstances.
There's so much vagueness in that statement that one has to wonder what, exactly, the Church of England is endorsing. What, exactly, defines "exceptional circumstances?"
The church’s position was laid out in a submission to an independent inquiry, due to publish its report this week, into the ethical concerns surrounding the treatment of severely premature babies.
In the submission Tom Butler, Bishop of Southwark, states: “It may in some circumstances be right to choose to withhold or withdraw treatment, knowing it will possibly, probably, or even certainly result in death.”
The church’s submission does not say which medical conditions might justify the decision to allow babies to die. It argues that there are “strong proportionate reasons” for “overriding the presupposition that life should be maintained”.
It says it would support the withdrawal of treatment only if all reasonable alternatives had been considered, “so that the possible lethal act would only be performed with manifest reluctance”.
I'm curious what the "strong proportionate reasons" for "overriding the presupposition that life should be maintained" are. I guess maybe it's if keeping the sick baby alive will cause emotional and financial stress for the family.
In its proposal the college of obstetricians argued that “active euthanasia” should be considered for the overall good of families, to spare parents the emotional burden and financial stress of caring for desperately sick infants.
The college said in its submission to the inquiry: “A very disabled child can mean a disabled family. 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 parents would be more confident about continuing a pregnancy and taking a risk on outcome.”
So, it's better to give birth to the severely sick child and then kill him/her after birth? Well, I guess that's one way of getting around all those partial-birth abortion debates. All I can say is that I'm thankful this is an area that we barbaric Americans aren't following those savvy Europeans' lead.
|