For a chain, Gaucho is startlingly expensive, the final bill ending up pretty close to one from much more stylish, individual restaurants
Boris Johnson's deputy faces damaging new allegations that he misled the public by claiming to be a magistrate
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 (14)
Here's a sample of the latest views published. You can click view all to read all views that readers have sent in.
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
13°c
17°c
