We could also improve the Health Service too by humanely killing seriously useless doctors and administrators.

Let the ones suggesting the above go first and show their support of efficiency by euthanasia, could not be classified as 'do as i say' rather than 'do as i do'.

This idea should be considered in serious medical conditions in which the child itself will most likely die early or live(or merely exist) in severe pain and suffering. Living with epidermolysis bullosa or severe spina bifida doesn't come close to suffering from AIDS or some forms of cancer. WE should all put aside our religous and ideological beliefs and try to place ourselves in not only the shoes of the carers but also the shoes of the sufferers. There are many humane and ecomonical benifits to gain from exploring this option. Despite the common notion that is "we are all equal", reality is that there is a value on individual lives. "Do as I say" can sometimes be necessary.

Then why not kill everyone who is in severe chronic pai. Of course, they can do it themselves. Funny how few people kill themselves because of chronic disability.

We adopted a child with multiple disabilities, who was not expected to walk or talk. Autism, CP, asthma, severe prematurity (28 weeks) are his short list of problems. Massive neonatal interventions were required to keep him alive his first year. Raising him has required a total shift in our lives, but he walks, talks a little, reads a lot and has a gift of touching people in an emotional way, that exceeds many typical children's connectedness. Killing him would have made the world bleaker. Think very carefully of this issue.

Who's life is it?
Do the DR's doing the murder (that is what euthanasia is)? know the fate of that child?
If so why do they let so many suffer?
In my opinion stop all this and concentrate on improving health, preganancy, and devote medical attention to improve quality of life for all.
Euthanasia of babies with disabilities is like genocide and abhorant.
Life is not always what we want it to be with all our facualties but perhaps when Euthanasia is given to those that want it and suicide not a crime then they can look at what they advocate as unworthy of life with statistics to prove how disabled children and adults really feel.
No evidence. No proof just another economic way of not providing care and medication required.
More babaric than eugenics who segregrated however that could be debated as medics controlled those unfortunate to be institutionalised by drugs also.
I repeat Who's life is it anyway?

I think the idea of euthanasia of seriously disabled newborn babies is a timely one.Only those who are in the medical profession will be able to see beyond the uproar of those who see this as 'social engineering'.The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecology are right when saying that a very disabled child can mean a disabled family as the birth of such a child,especially into a poor or loosely adhered family could be devastating,for both the family and the child concerned.If a childs life is to suffer for eternity, would that not be called punishment and not life? How can idealists call putting this poor child out of such misery wrongdoing?Can a poor family even contemplate continuous medicall costs of such a child, and disregard whether there is food on the table or clothes to keep warm?Can a dysfunctional family of poor socioeconomic background deal with such challenge adequately?I think those who are in opposition of this idea should come up with better reasons, rather than get emotional without sound factual,economical and humanitarian grounds as such.

No Doctor should have the right to decide, since when did they become God. We had a child that we were told by this so called professionals that would not see her first birthday and now 12 years on is doing things that other kids can do. Seems they are in the same league as Hitler and the Jews.

Euthanasia has become a brand name for various unrespectable interests. It remains frustrating that that doctors are largely so indifferent to our concerns: they don't see the same ruthless machine at work, and believe trite government propaganda.Bertrand Russell, in his book, "The Impact of Science on Society," wrote, "At present the population of the world is increasing ... War so far has had no great effect on this increase ... I do not pretend that birth control is the only way in which population can be kept from increasing. There are others ... If a Black Death could be spread throughout the world once in every generation, survivors could procreate freely without making the world too full ... the state of affairs might be somewhat unpleasant, but what of it? Really high-minded people are indifferent to suffering, especially that of others."
So since they have no voice just lets end it for them Some sad sad people on this postings site From the parent of a Low fuctioning Autistic damaged after mmr vaccination as 18mths MMR RIP

I have a severely autistic son and a mildly disabled daughter. Is my life what I expected it to be 20 years ago? No. Am I happy to have raised 2 such beautiful children? Yes. This is a personal choice for the parents. I think the couple who adopted the child with multiple disabilities are angels. I wouldn't expect anyone to want to adopt a severely disabled child. If there were some way parents facing such a dilemma knew for sure that their child would be adopted into a loving home where they would be well cared for, adoption would probably be the first option if they were unable or unwilling to care for the child themselves. I don't think anyone relishes the thought of euthanising a child if there are viable alternatives.

A new Terrorist Group made up of Doctors.. Killing inoccent born childrens.. Drs dont even fukns know the future of the babies and they think they will be disabled.. how about if they get normal by miricle in future..

Whoever idea is this , is worse then hitler, bush and osama. I hate you doctors.. if you kill these unborn babies, then why not make easy for you self kill sick people as well.. and Change the Name of Hospital " Killing Machine Zone"

Until which time doctors have a greater success rate in determining problems and giving newborns and preemies the correct treatments for these conditions, they are in no position to decide the viability of an infant. So many times you hear stories where doctor's gave children grim chances for survival or normalcy. Many people consider it a miracle when their children don't live up to that expectation, but many times it's simply because the doctors were wrong to begin with. I am the mother of a 28 week old preemie and I was explained all the horrors I could expect as well. None of the conditions described to me occurred with her, however simple afflictions that could have been determined with common tests were completely missed. I believe doctors have a lot more to work on in the area of actually treating people before they are qualified to decide whether a child is worth the bother for a future.

They are not talking about letting a down's, autistic or premie child die. The disease they are referring to are much much worse. Epidermolyisis bullosa leads to skin dropping of so you only are left with claws by the time you are 2 then it eventually kills you in the same way. This is established knowledge and there is not current cure. These are the realities. (the people against this idea are probably also the people against stem cell research too). I think there is much over-reaction to the statements from lay people who really don't know what it is all about.

The simple story here is that all nations are proven by the care they provide to the neediest and most vulnerable of its' citizens.

If a nation seeks to circumvent God's decisions regarding life - it will ultimately have to answer for not being willing to make the effort to care and provide comfort to the neediest of its' number.

I am shocked by this article. How can anyone wish to murder a child just becuase they have a disability? Every child that is born is born for a reason; if they were not meant to be here, they would not have survived in the womb. Every child is a gift and should be valued and accepted for who they are, regardless of ability or disability, and have a right to live just as anyone else does.
I work with children who have severe learning difficulties and disabilties and I cannot imagine a world where they are killed at birth just because they are considered to be 'different' by some doctors.
Is killing children with disabilities just the same as Hitler killing disabled children before and during World War Two?

Hitler had the same idea. and he carried it out.

the value of life is dropping like a stone........
it all starts with believing that we are not a purposeful creation, but just a mutated fish, which in turn was just a mutated hydrogen atom smashing randomly into a few carbons.......

when scientists take a bunch of dead chemicals and form a living being, I'll believe in atheistic science. Don't hold your breath.

Murali, if bringing a handicapped child to a family will cause such discerning affects because they already have instability, that gives them no extra right to terminate a life because it will cause them duress and same to the child (we need licenses to drive a car, perhaps we should require one to bear children) . There are unfit families creating offspring all over the world, and these children aren't disabled, only they do become a disability on society due to their upbringing. Some bring positive energy to others, while some bring negative. That is life. There are starving nations with people living with disease and famine, do we kill them because they would be "better off" in our eyes. You cannot pass judgment on the life of someone else, that is not our right nor never should it be. It's time to stop looking at the problem and throwing a patch on it, and time to look at the cause of the problem and prevent its ocurence in the first place. But then again who really wants to be the first to prevent a problem rather than deal with it after it happens.

I think only the mother of a severely disabled infant can make the terrible decision of allowing that child to die.

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out

no euthanasia. period.
the idea of allowing a child to live with something like epidermolyisis bullosa is heartbreaking, but the alternative is to concede that we have a right to determine under what conditions a life is terminated.
first the argument shifts from "is it acceptable to terminate life?" to "under what conditions is it acceptable to terminate life?" then the argument shifts to "what quality of life do we deem acceptable before we allow a child to live?" and in a country with national health care, cost will creep into the calculus as well.
good-hearted people can be convinced that a child shouldn't live with eb, or with a combination of quadriplegia and severe retardation, or any of a number of tragic handicaps. once you concede that it may be acceptable in one case, you have opened the door.
let us agree that we have no right to take life, under any circumstances.

Throughout history, people with physical and mental disabilities have been abandoned at birth, and still continue to be segregated, institutionalized, tortured in the name of behavior management, abused, raped, euthanized and murdered by the state. Remember, Nazi-Germany's T-4 Program murdered some 250,000 PWD, before they started killing the Jews. Forensic anthropologist Clyde Snow, speaking before the May, 1984 meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science said,"Of all the forms of murder, none is more monstrous than that committed by a state against it's own citizens." Shame on the UK and the Scotsman for promoting the murder of any innocent human being!

Imagine the adults we know today who would so easily have been slaughtered as infants. What a crime against humanity.

....after the sick babies are killed ...next we can move go on to the old and infirm... empty the nursing homes, your death now to be decided by some doctor of Medicine "here dearie ...luv put this bag over your head will you"...the good doctor intones "you won't feel a thing" .... soon after they they move on to the 'disabled' ...give em the gas pipe they'll say ...and when the disabled are all dead and gone they can move on to the homosexuals and Jews..

The Nazis had it all figured out didn't they?

Let's be clear about what is being suggested "active euthanasia" clearly means "active killing" - in this case the weakest and most vulnerable members of our society. Are people seriously suggesting that because of scientific advances we should be taking rather than saving lives? Rather than debating the issue of screening and subsequently killing off unwanted children, I would like to see a debate on the screening of applicants to medical schools. How have we allowed "senior doctors" who sanction the killing of babies to have entered the medical profession?

I am a bereaved mom of a 28-weeker who died when he was seven months old, after struggling for 4 mths in the NICU.

My opinion is - If the medical staffs have the means and machines to keep a baby alive, they should. The child will make his/her own decision if they want to respond to it. That next breath, that next struggle to keep their foods and lots of medicines down, that last push for the heart to pump - these are the child's effort. Each child is a gift from God and only God has the right to take the life back.

My advice to parents is to have faith in that child of yours and have faith in God. I pray that all the medical staffs will be guided by God and not their own intellect. I pray that it is a life of a child that they think of and not the money factor and the challenges of the family members. Doctors' duties are to save lives, not be the economy planner or meddle with families wellbeing.

If we didn't have doctors, these babies would die. So would many others. Are we letting the doctors become gods, choosing between life and death? So what? They always had that choice. If we didn't have doctors, these babies would die. That is nature. "God's" choice if you like.

I know quite a few people with down syndrome and autism. The idea of doing good by murdering them is unthinkably barbaric and absurd.

But that isn't what we are talking about. The T-4 program was murder. But generally calling euthanasia murder is a huge dilution on the term. I am not saying that this is something that you should definately do. But refusing to talk about it is equally a crime in my mind.

Morals-shmorals.

If we want to be good humans, we'll kill the babies.

Also we can feed them to the homeless.

Abortion; first trimester? 12 weeks? Full term? This is a pill more easily swallowed if you just call it a post partum abortion. It is the natural extension of the progressive abortion- just one, small step past partial-birth abortion. Then, we can gently slide permission from 4 weeks post-partum, to 6 months ppm, to 1 or 2 years ppm,......

When our daughter was born with Down Syndrome 22 years ago, we were told by various doctors:
1) she wouldn't live beyond the age of 2
2) she would never learn to speak, read or write
3) it would be kinder to let her die (of hunger or being smothered to death.. we never did figure out what my gynecologist was hinting at)
4) we should put her in an institution to save our marriage
5) we could keep her around the house "like a pet" and (our all-time favorite) one doctor told us "Mongols love music, particularly the tango!"
6) we should put her into a "special school" and leave her there (because "people with Down Syndrome are only happy amongst themselves" - the same doctor also told us "she has red hair.. she will have a violent temper later on. All people with red hair do, you know".
7) when she was 7 a doctor asked us why we hadn't already reserved her place in a protected workshop

She works as a kindergarten assistant. She can read, write, talk a blue streak (in two languages). She is happy, fun and a useful member of society. She is also arguably smarter than a number of doctors we've met over the years.

Oh, and my husband and I are still married and the family's doing fine.

So much for the wisdom of doctors.

Kate, Ohio, says "If a nation seeks to circumvent God's decisions regarding life..." Is she one of the Amish? She appears to be saying we shouldn't tamper, and should allow the sick to die as that is what God 'wants'. As if God is some incapable dim-wit unable to kill or cure people without mortal assistance.

The fact is that we've gone way beyond tampering with God's decisions a long time ago. The question is not about what God 'wants', it's about what is the correct course of action. If we've reached a point where we can conquer Nature, should we draw the line somewhere?

#29 cloyce good point. what really is the difference between a late term abortion at a month before birth, and a "postpartum abortion" a month after birth?
in the us, late term abortions can be done for the health (to include mental health) of the mother. how short a step to "A very disabled child can mean a disabled family." translation: kill the child for the mental well-being of the mother. it is all the same. once we have established the acceptability of abortion, we have a hard time arguing against infant euthanasia.

Let God decide who lives or dies. He made us, we are his children and He loves us all, "normal"or disabled or sick. It is not the place of doctors or politicians to make these decisions.

This proposal by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecology likely took hours of discussion based on months and years of deeply-held reservations and concerns for what they think is right. For those reservations, for those discussions, for that thinking and for this proposal, this group and all who think as they do should be ashamed.

I feel physically sick!
Where is HUMANITY heading??

Start with severely disabled infants! Then what?? The moderately disabled? Then what? Those likely to develop a disability? Then what? THEN WHAT? THEN WHAT? This is sickening beyond belief!!!
More than, that IT would be MURDER!
They're going to hang Saddam for such "selective killings" of the "undesirables"!!!
I'm in tears as I try to type this!!
WHAT KIND ON BRITAIN IS THIS?

Christy Brown, wrote 'My left foot'. He would have been killed under the criteria of these doctors. The world would have been a poorer place.

If these doctors can know the future..Please have them send me the lottery numbers. Until they can read the future, no one should be able to kill a baby or any other person.

Quote - "Senior doctors"!! "Health professionals"!! Which comes first? Who decides? (and) Since when did M U R D E R become the concerns of "senior doctors" or "health professionals"?

Do not open this door. Once it has been opened it will be opened wider and wider. Nail it shut now.

We must remember God made man to enjoy and prosper in this world. There have been many debates as to what is life;well it is simple. Life is when the body and mind can live on ITS OWN TOGETHER! We have the ability to create human life but that is banned. We have the ability to end a group of just cells but that is forbidden. So just where is the line? Simple if the organism can live, grow and survive with only the care nature gave us naturally to deliver then that truly is Gods plan. If it can not then God is calling the organism back to his care and tender mercy.

Stop with the God stuff, Gods not going to pick up a severely disabled baby and care for it when its parents abandon it...its a dreadful call for anyone to have to make and this stuff chills me. What do we class as 'severely disabled', who can make that judgement. However I think if I had a severely disabled baby that died I would let it rest in peace and would not wish it to be rescucitated, the thought of a wee soul suffering is just not on.

I think that geneticists and medical ethicists who are supporting this active euthanasia would only suggest this in situations where the newborn would have no ability to have any pleasure in life. I would support them in their compassion. One has to investigate this and think outside ones bubble. We need to be given clear examples of what the situations these doctors are talking about. This should be discussed and clarified. I find geneticist the most compassionate of scientists because they are not romantics. Don't be so quick to condemn these doctors. It took courage on their part to bring this issue up.

Our grandsons are autistic. Our seven children have learning disabilities in various degrees. Our lives have been changed -- and for the better -- because of these children. So far the "doctors" have scored "0" on correct future abilities and "100%" on totally incorrect suppositions. Also, the "highly educated experts" in education have been completely wrong about the abilities of our grandsons. So much for the "experts" in medicine and education. Heaven help us all if the Elitists have their way and "social engineering" becomes acceptable. No one deemed a "useless eater" will be allowed to live whether they be young or old.

fingers crossed to re-incarnation? who's afraid of what's after?

personally, i'm looking forward to the tribulation when all the answers are clear...

How unethical and immoral an issue. Every medical practioner takes the same oath :

". . .I will follow that system of regimen which, according to my ability and judgment, I consider for the benefit of my patients, and abstain from whatever is deleterious and mischievous. 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.. . .""Into whatever houses I enter, I will go into them for the benefit of the sick, and will abstain from every voluntary act of mischief and corruption;..."

They are sworn to PROTECT the lives of those who cannot do it for themselves. Now let it be known I am pro-choice when it comes to the health of both mother and child, but how can we deny the lives of babies who can be cared for by those willing to do so? I was sick when I read this article :(

you people are sick to even think of doing somthing like this. its the same thing as murder just justified by doctors.

I suppose the Royal College will next advise the extermination of the old, the infirm, the poor, and the useless? Now that would be progress! A little humility, please, Herr Doctors, medical science is not an EXACT science - or did they not teach you that?

"Let God decide who lives or dies. He made us, we are his children and He loves us all, "normal"or disabled or sick. It is not the place of doctors or politicians to make these decisions."

So you're suggesting that we retire all the doctors, unplug all the respirators and other hardware, shut down the labs, and let the tools God created (cancer, bacteria, viruses, our need for war etc.) to retire us from our earthly existance take over unimpeded? We're playing God now, in keeping some of these newborns alive for a life of suffering instead of letting them go to the peace of His care, and we call it "humanitarian". How utterly appropriate.

Since when did the letters MD give individuals God power? As the father of a beautiful little girl who recently passed away from Spinal Muscular Atrophy, I would love to share hours and hours of stories and introduce them to literally thousands of people who's lives were made better by getting the opportunity to meet my daughter. I don't believe that anyone should ever have the authority to say that a child's life should be ended to avoid financial and emotional burden. Yes, I miss her like crazy and the last two years have been harder than I could ever have imagined, but I'd sure as hell do it all over again.
www.coggination.com www.our-sma-angels.com/grace

"'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for Me."

-Jesus

(Matthew 25:45)

This is just way sick and wrong! instead of ending that life why not spend more time researching and such to cure or at least make life more tolerable for the disabled that they are refering to? I have 4 boys, 2 have Full Mutation Fragile-X syndrome, I can not imagine a doctor suggesting to terminate either of them.Granted, they are not as severe as those they refer to, but hey, I bet a hundred years or so ago,they would have encouraged abandonment or some such! the medical field is making progress, lets just find a way to make things a bit easier for them, not kill them. Heck, when it is their time to go, they are gonna go regardless, let them & nature/god decide. Besides all of that, when you have a disabled person in your life, you sure learn a lot of new things each day! :>}

See Jonathan Swift: A Modest Proposal.

His wisdom remains with us to this day. Perhaps we should erect his statue.

Break out the golden cutlery and the fine place-mats!

I find it funny how this proposal is compared to the T4 program (which killed adults mainly). There is a big difference between an informed decision made by doctors (most Nazi doctors were not, in fact, doctors) and the parents, and a decision made by one person who hated the disabled.

I don't know about you, but I'd rather not bring a severely disabled child into this world so he/she could be teased, taunted, and tormented (and all the other nice things that come with disability). We are also talking about humane deaths, like an injection. An injection, followed by unconsciousness a few seconds later. Are we even so sure babies have any sort of "consciousness" to begin with? I know I don't remember anything before 2!

Finally, this concerns "severely disabled" babies. This is not for minor cosmetic problems or a small hole in the heart, both of which are more than treatable. This is for things like neural tube defects or severe genetic conditions, such as Down Syndrome, neither of which allow for a normal life by any means. People who say otherwise are full of ****.

Feel free to poke holes in my argument (even though I am just posting my opinion). Most readers seem to be against this, be it for personal reasons (like raising a disabled child), or for religious reasons (get a life; there is no God kthx).

#39, i think it's too late allready. the battle between good and evil is beyond our doorsteps, it's seizing our hearts and minds, killing our souls. forcing us to btray ourselves with idiotic words , and meaningless titles from sociopaths dressed as leaders and healers and teachers. most here didn't seem fooled, i fear for humanity right now.

I hope we can all agree that if a child naturally passes away, so be it. There are two perspectives at play here- the first is a genuine compassion for the helpless, to nurture and care for those who are most vulnerable among us. The second perspective feels as if it is relieving suffering, by ACTIVELY shortening life (not naturally). You, the MD, or any other human, are not the originator of life. If you can't give it, you can't take it away. Those in society who have compassion are agast at the active taking of life. The other side claim the financial loss, the strain/burden on marriages, etc are too great......MAYBE FOR YOU. why not grow into a better person and accept that YOU are the strong, here to protect the weak, not cut your losses. p.s.- may God's grace continue to bless you, until you are grateful for it.

This is a dreadful proposal. It's sad that we don't consider how we are brought up and the values held by society e.g. love thy neighbour, we are all equal. We need to change the thinking behind how we live and stop being led by a powerful few whose only concern is that of enonomics. Doctors should not forget that they do not rule the world, it's sad that they do not know how indoctrinated they are into running peoples lives. Do they not have a responsibility to lead the way in showing the public that human live is precious, not how to get rid of those deemed as worthless. They should spend there time on developing new drugs and therapies to assist people gain a good quality of life. Or they should leave the profession if they feel that the only answer is to kill innocent people.

This is the most single horrific idea that so-called professionals have ever come up with. Hitler did, and we got rid of him. Killing babies simply due to concerns about lifestyles is abhorrent. I'm sure doctors would say they are thinking of the babies welfare (that is debatable however) and the welfare of parents, but you can NOT go around killing babies on grounds that are simply put, social eugenics. You only have to take the case of Charlotte Wyatt to see how wrong doctors can be, and how easily they jump to conclusions. This talk has got to stop. Doctors should not be allowed to play God with vulnerable lives. The men who suggested this need to think exceedingly carefully about their own ethical stance and where their morals come from, and whether they are in fact, suitable to be doctors at all. Active euthanasia is murder. Period. Babies can't decide for themselves, and nobody should decide whether they live or die for them. I understand there may be a case for voluntary euthanasia, but this is a step too far. Way too far.

These doctors have a Nazi mentality. A Godless mentality. I pray they will change their hearts and minds. I know of a family whose son was born with many defects. The family was very dysfunctional as 99% of families are due to Original Sin. Based on some of the previous comments what chance would the child have had coming into this terribly dysfunctional home? None according to the base thinking scoffers on this site. But God was working through the whole situation, as He works through all things if we allow Him. Subsequently, because of prayers and faith on the part of many friends and relatives, the father of the family changed his whole outlook on life. He went from a materialistic know-it-all to a man of faith and compassion. The child who is blind and autistic has grown into a prayerful and powerful example of how God can take a seemingly bad situation and do something wonderful! This young man perceives mysteries beyond what normal people are able to fathom. He sits before the Blessed Sacrament and weeps because He knows how much God loves each person, including him. He even laughs about his disabilities by cracking jokes about how he is going to get a driver's license soon. He is BEAUTIFUL. His family is BEAUTIFUL. God grant us all the gift of faith to see the beauty of each human person and the beauty of all families! Amen.

It is very interesting how many Americans comment on this site and especially on an issue such as this. Americans legally kill their own prisoners. Until this stops I do not see how you can disagress with state murder!

If it were not for medical science, and the brave experiments made by the medical profession over the last 200 years (and more) many people would not be here today - including most of the handicaped babies.

Just because we medically CAN do something, I do not think we SHOULD in quite a lot of cases, (Gender switches / cosmetic plastic surgery / breast enhancement on NHS etc etc) however I do think that each child should have the best possible chance of a "good" life - the definition of this has to be debated, I applaud the decision for this to be brought out in the open. I also know that it is dangerous ground - but name a medical procedure which wasn't unusual/ ground-breaking / morally or ethically "wrong" when first discussed..... Here, have a dead patient's heart anyone?

I'm not saying I am pro or anti this, but I am saying we as a society need to be able to discuss this. Each child is different as is each family. We have to be able to care for each patient as best we can - and yes, £££ MUST come into it - I would rather my taxes were spent on a child who had a greater chance of surviving than a severally premature or ill baby who will be medically dependant for the rest of his life.

Shame on these new-age Eugenicists who --just like the Nazis-- are disguised as medical doctors!

FYI check out:
http://www.ushmm.org/museum/exhibit/focus/disabilities_02/

DISABLED RIGHTS ALLIANCE
A Non-Government Organization
d-r-a@telus.net

Wow, what an issue! This is some debate. The Pros and Cons are very numerous and both very valid.
My respect to both sides. Good luck England.

I have to agree with Doreen and Refus. I've always gotten very depressed when I hear about new babies suffering with terrible diseases. One premature baby was born and the doctors had to break her ribs to keep him breathing. The doctors told her parents it hurt like hell for him to breathe, but there was nothing much they could do, because anesthetics would be tough for her. I think in severe cases it is a matter of compassion to let the children die. I don't understand how some people think the opposite. We put to sleep an animal in severe pain and suffering, why not a human being?

I've seen families very negatively affected, but worse of all, I've heard how terribly many of the children themselves suffer because of medical "advances." It was more humane before many of these advances came about. And I also don't go for this "playing God" issue. They are playing "God" when they use medical advances!

And remember, not everyone believes in God. I think this should be a private decision between the physician and the parent. I would applaud the brave, caring, compassionate parents who made such a decision.

Cynthia, I agree with you. You said everything I wanted to say, but wasn't articulate enough to do so.

This is not about the infants. This is about the cost and trouble to society to care for the infants. If it were not for the fanatical Christian Right-to-Life movement, this is exactly where we would be headed today in the USA. This is a fine example of fascism at its worst.

first of all........ there is no God! why do the feable of mind always bring up this crap? Are the rest of us supposed to get scared at this point from the impending lightning bolt.

If there was a God what a *uck off he/she/it must be to allow suffering of children in this way (but of course God doesn't intervene!! good excuse, who made that one up eh?).

Then there's the where will it all stop brigade! assholes are you total morons? Old people next indeed.... we'd start with he convicts first of course.... then the unemployed, Gypo's etc!

Most people stongly against this do not have the facts or the experience to pontificate (how original to say Nazi, Hitler etc I applaud you and your education level).

To wake up in pain each day of your existance is worse than death. We are not talking Down's or Autism either, there are a multitude of rare syndroms etc etc never reported or known about.
If these could be detected in the womb... abortion has to be strongly suggested.

Then there's the family's... I can't only just try to imagine their dilema.

....and just to help the thickies out there, the doctors wouldn't do dawn raids to snatch and kill the kiddies!

Sorry, Grant, looks like we struck a foul-mouthed nerve......

While I'm here, I'd like to know why the verbally violent outburst? Rational people can debate an issue, and live in peace. Yes, it's true, I stand on the other side of the issue. I am a Respiratory Therapist, and I do have the facts AND experience to pontificate. As one who attends to the dying in a hospital setting, young and old, I am required to deal with these issues daily. I see you are from China. It's beyond the "womans right to choose", The State decides the abortions. The State directs, or destroys, religious thought. The most foul and shallow comments on this thread come from a State that has cheapened life more than any other place on Earth. Let those who read this see where you go when life or death is decided without acklowledgement of the Giver of Life.

I find the responses to my observation interesting! There are a lot of feedback but do not remember seeing someone say "I will take the disabled child, I will raise them and pay all necessary bills. etc. I will not collect a dime from our health services since I will take care of all things".

The same thought exists for abortions. Let the woman have the baby and you will pay all costs, adopt the babies, care and pay for their needs all by myself.

All you good meaning people out there with clean hands I would strongly suggest you write the op/ed editor of this paper immediately and have you name, address, phone number published and say "If you have or will have a severely disable child I will adopt and care of them and pay all expenses out of my pocket and not receive any type of government support".

Step up now and get started put into action to take over these kids!

At first blush, I thought the present learning institutions train their Masters of Social Work to tell us that the welfare of babies and children take priority in our world. The rationale for euthanasia might be construed to include disabled countries or families. When Indochina was disabled by the tsunami did the World make a mistake to drop food and blankets when the answer to this tragedy was a couple of well placed Hydrogen bombs? Human sacrifice was common is ages past. Is it to be common again now, as the religious Mideast extremist demonstrates?

Cloyce,
your Chinese facts are more than 10 years old. I'm Scottish by the way (people can live in other countries quite happily and safe!). Are you are one of the superior beings from the US of A.

Religion, hipocrosy, money, hipocrosy, corruption, Bush, hipocrosy....

....and no just because you have some facts you cannot pontificate!

Not random facts, but livin' the life, buddy, 15 years of 12 hour shifts. And I'm no different than you, just trying to hold myself to higher standards. Anyone can take the easy way- but to do the right thing is often the more difficult path.

I have difficulty understanding why so many people have such a disconnected perspective. You may think that your view is unchallengeable- that's your right, but instead of reacting with the 'sanctity of life' waffle shouldn't you take a moment to research and educate yourself about the facts?

This proposal, as a few people have tried to point out, does not refer to people with down syndrome, autism or some 'severe disabilities'- so don't go on about the number of people you know who lead happy fulfilling lives, they still would be. The proposed conditions such as cases of epidermolyisis bullosa involve profound limitations to human functioning, unconceivable to most it appears. Of course there would be happy moments in these children's lives, that is a gd thing about human nature, that we try to make the best of what there is. But would these outweigh the realities of having profound complex difficulties.

Also, they are not talking about making this decision so that families have a better lifestyle- (shallow? slightly!) in order to contemplate providing for such a child your family dynamic would have to be strong due to the dramatic changes implicit in accepting the challenge. 'Disabled family' takes into account the fact that a family's focus would be completely on that child 24/7 in order to 'maintain' the baby's life. Is this fair on other children in the family? On the parents who have little choice but to cope with the emotional, psychological physical, etc. impacts? It is not a choice to call the babysitter and have a night off.

Ultimately it is individual choice. However, before slating those who work everyday to make the lives of people better, educate yourself and then think of how you may feel having to watch your baby suffer everyday while you look on helpless. Afterall it is the child who 'lives' with the consequences. Yes you may be able to love that child more than anyone in the world, but that does not take away their suffering.

Thank you HD. I hope your response appears in other relevant sites.

Euthanasia takes place regularly in hospices but no voices are raised against this so where's the difference? To allow severely deformed new borns to live a life of inevitable purgatory is either based on ignorance or arrogance and to believe that some fictional God did it for some purpose is puerilism to the extreme.

If the parents and the medical professionals are of the opinion that it would be cruel to allow the new born to exist then it would be compassionate not to allow it to do so.

Should the parents object then its their responsibilty but, do remember the recent case where the parents of a severely handicapped child went to law to stop the physicians bringing their child's life to an end when their child was on a life-support system. The parents took the medics to law twice and the decision was made in their favour and the child, although seemingly very severely handicapped, lived, but the parents could not cope thereafter, so separated, and the care of the child had to be taken over by a foster mother.

This is simply misplaced idealism by both parents and the courts, and while the child is probably being competently managed and loved, it is not with its biological parents and any quality of life, owing to its handicaps and exacerbated by maternal deprivation, is non-existent. The parents, now liberated from their responsibilities and obligations, are free to continue causing catastophe to others in their lives.

Bringing an early end to this child's life would appear to heve been the most compassionate decision and most likely would have been in the child's interest too.