Afternoon:
24°c
It’s amazing to learn they did any research at all — unless it was into farting and foreskins
Teenager becomes the first person to die of swine flu in London and the fourth in the country
More...
We must debate mercy killing of disabled babies, say top doctors
Last updated at 23:07pm on 05.11.06
Severely disabled: Charlotte Wyatt's parents fought to keep her alive
A doctors' group today called for a debate on the mercy killing of disabled babies.
The medical profession should examine the "active euthanasia" of desperatelyill newborns, said the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecology.
It wants an inquiry into whether the "deliberate intervention to cause the death of an infant" should be legalised.
The proposal met with a furious response from some quarters last night.
Labour MP Jim Dobbin compared it to the eugenics policies of the Nazis and said: "This sends the message that only the perfect are acceptable and the disabled can be discarded."
The college suggested that decisions on when young babies should be killed or allowed to die should depend not only on the gravity of their condition.
Its submission to an inquiry on the ethics of treatment for severely ill and disabled newborns raises the question of whether such children should be killed if they are not wanted by their parents.
The study comes against the background of growing acceptance of the ideas of euthanasia, suicide and hastening death for mortally sick adults and the dying elderly.
The college said of euthanasia in babies: "If assisted dying legislation is to be anticipated or enacted at the other end of life, now would be a pertinent time to discuss this."
The Disability Rights Commission said it would vehemently oppose such a move.
"It is morally reprehensible to place the value of one life above another," said a spokesman.
John Wyatt, a neonatologist at University College London Hospital, said euthanasia would turn medicine into social engineering where those considered worthless were doomed to die.
Any law allowing newborn babies to be killed would cover cases like that of Charlotte Wyatt, who was born three months prematurely, weighing just one pound and with severe brain and lung damage.
Doctors wanted to switch off her life support machine but her parents - who have now separated - fought to keep her alive.
Charlotte has confounded medical opinion and is now three years old. However, she is severely disabled and needs constant medical care.
The call for a discussion on euthanasia was made in a report for an inquiry into the ethics of treatment of premature babies conducted by the Nuffield Council on Bioethics. The highly influential medical forum's final report is to be published later this month.
There is increasing debate over abortion and the survival of babies born at ever-earlier stages of pregnancy. Those delivered after 23 weeks in the womb often survive yet abortion laws allow termination of pregnancy at 24 weeks.
The emotion behind the debate has been deepened by film showing a 12-week-old foetus moving its limbs and 'walking' in the womb.
Some doctors consider, however, that a baby born so prematurely and who survives thanks to modern medical treatment is likely to be so badly disabled that worthwhile life is impossible.
At the same time, Labour's Mental Capacity Act allows adults to order their own deaths in advance through 'living wills' or appoint 'attorneys' who can tell doctors to let them die if they are desperately sick.
Government legal advisers are also considering downgrading euthanasia from its status.
Any such move is unlikely to become law in the near future although pro-euthanasia MPs and peers are trying to establish a euthanasia law for adults.
The college's report, signed by its ethics chief Dr Susan Bewley, said the Nuffield inquiry should "think more radically about non-resuscitation, withdrawal of treatment decisions, the best interests test and active euthanasia" in the care of sickly newborns.
It added that concerns over suffering "might lead to a positive argument for resuscitation limits for the extremely premature infant or to intentional assisted dying".
The college also raised the question of "whether there should be other factors for babies, such as being wanted by their parents or other carers and having the potential to make some, even if small, contribution to wider society".
Reader views (16)
Here's a sample of the latest views published.
okey i think that mercy killing, and euthenasia are seriously wrong. An example you find that your baby is going to be blind. you think that it would better to she her die then watch her suffer. Don't you think that the child should have a say in the matter. God know even if they will be blind, our medical predictions are far from perfect. How would you like to live the rest of your life knowing that you killed you child, going by the medical assumption that they were blind. And they ended up not being blind. Have the child they are also a human life and have as much right to live in this world as we do. Our society nowdays overrates phisical appearence and thinks that only "perfect" people have the right to live in our world. Another example a mother goes to doctors and they tell her that her child would have serious problems, and told her that she should "kill" abort the baby. She decided not to. The childs name was Tim Tebow a amazing athlete that won the Rose Bowl and is now going to the NFL. what a waste of life killing babies people mercy killing. all the aborted babies and athinasia victems we don't know mabie one of them might have been the one who found the cure to cancer or AIDS. what a sad thing to know huh.
- Joe, us, rockford
It is completely out of the question !!! Not only do I not agree with this ,but I also figure this is the first step in going after other people in society like the disabled ,and our elderly ! It is the first step in our day toward social engineering as well ! Absolutely NOT !!!!!
- Roy, Florida
How selfish to make the terminally ill suffer longer than they chose to so that we become better people for looking after them and getting nothing in return (except the wage you earn as a health professional). This decision should not lie with us, but with the adults who suffer unbearably. Give them the choice to die with dignity at a time of their chosing, give them the autonomy they have been afforded throughout their life only to be taken away when it matters most.
- Jo, London, UK
I recently terminated a pregnancy at 13 weeks gestation having discovered that the baby had a serious (and not uncommon) chromosomal abnormality called Edwards Syndrome. This disorder has been in the news fairly recently when parents of children born with it have challenged doctors' decisions not to treat them, the doctors view being that the children's life expectancy is so short and their quality of life is so poor the preferred choice is to let them "slip away naturally". In my view, this isn't murder, it is kindness. Before you condemn "euthanasia" (if that is what this is), understand the disorders concerned, the level of suffering they cause the child (and the family), and the likely prognosis for a child given such treatment.
- Skip, Hampshire, UK
It's one thing to withhold treatment (other than sedatives) and allow nature to take its course (or for God to decide matters). It's quite another to deliberately set out to kill a baby which cannot express an opinion.
Surely terminally ill adults who can rationally express their desire to die soon and painlessly have a much better case for a debate? It is, after all, their own life they want to end, not someone else's. Why do they have to go to Switzerland?
- Nigel, London
Who didn't know this was coming?
- Daniel Rowe, Nashville, Tennessee USA
The next step will be a "debate" or a "study" of whether or not Doctors should be allowed to end the lives of elderly people who have debillitating, chronic diseases or are "desperately ill". Then they'll move on the folks with migraines, I guess.
May we soon see the day when Marksmanship is taught at Medical Schools?
- Peter, Nashua, New Hampshire, USA
Why try to find cures for diseases, or treat hunger, or heal a broken bone? Isn't death just better for all these maladies? Sarcasm intended!
- Max, Okinawa, Japan
Amazing comments from people who do not have continually sick children. You have no idea the emotional stress. You walk away and don't even help. The people who make their living off these children should not even comment. My son physicaly abuses my wife, defecates on the floor, pounds on the walls, and screeches constantly. He is only autistic. He then turns 18 and the federal government forces us into court, costs us more money, makes us take guardianship and tells us to plan for his future. Of which he has none. If that is not enough the hospitals charged us over $1,500.00 for an emergency room visit, would not take United Health Care, and this was all a mistake by a special education teacher who thought he had a seizure. What a money grab off the week and disabled.
- Mark, St. Charles, IL
I agree in principle with calls for a range of Euthanasia options. I think it can be far more of a cruelty to some to give them life - or keep them alive - than it is to let them die. Ironic that a non Euthanasia policy that is designed to be positive and life affirming can yet end up as a negative and torturous experience for an individual not given the right to decide their own fate.
However, in practice I can't defend any calls or will for Euthanasia or anything where a life can be determined to be of no more use.
Why? Because I absolutely do not trust any committee, group or even individual to make those decisions about what is deemed a valuable life. If the politicians and others can so quickly move to prune away what were considered unassailable freedoms to thwart the rise of extremist terrorism, where you can now be arrested without evidence, where they were pushing for courts without juries, behind closed doors, and worst of all, not even being made aware of the evidence against you - if the bastions of freedom of justice, fair trial, innocent until guilty and so on are susceptible to erosion/corruption, can you imagine the same happening to a society that has agreed Euthanasia can be an acceptable thing.
It's not difficult to imagine a harsher reality, in which 'For the good of all', certain people are Euthanised, because of 'difficult times', or some other political/social will. Euthanasia is a good intention, that perhaps is another step on the road to hell.
- Jb, Norwich, UK
To even be having this discussion in a serious forum shows that we, in only 60 short years, have become the same evil that our grandparents fought to extinguish so bravely.
My sadness has no words.
- John Lawrence, Courtice, Ontario, Canada
This is utterly reprehensible. How dare we place any life's worth higher or lower on our perception of it? This is nothing less than plummeting down a moral slope towards the Nazi-type eugenics program. Leave it to the Brits and their Neo-liberal policies on morality to denounce the value of human life and begin a regime they fought tooth-and-nail back in the forties.
- Eugen Olsen, Durban, South Africa
I think the doctors have a good point. Life with severely damaged brain is agony. The doctors need to clarify just what situations they are talking about.
- H.F., Oakland, USA
We are imperfect, how can we decide each others fate?
- Heather, Baylor University, Texas USA
I have taught Special Education students who are "so badly disabled that worthwhile life is impossible," according to this article. Not one of them, including those who could not walk or speak, was less than worthwhile to me or the other people who loved and cared for them. Did the students believe their lives were not worthwhile? Are our pets lives worthwhile, even though they cannot speak? They certainly find ways to coommunicate, as do the disabled children. To kill them is murder, nothing less.
- Wendy, Morgantown, West Virginia, USA
Having worked as a health professional with the elderly and incapacitated and also being a mother of a handicapped child I can tell you that the "small contribution" these individuals make to society is that they require us to stretch and learn to give and love regardless of what we get in return. This contribution is priceless because it is that ability to learn to give unconditionally to another that keeps us human and caring. If we start to legislate the worth of one individual over another, I feel we will do away with true human caring and replace it with fear and selfishness.
- Linda, Saipan, USA
