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
Principled Discovery is a place to stop and discuss news and information related to faith, family and particularly education. Pour yourself a cup of tea and join the conversation! 
My opinion will come via an experience I had through some good friends at church. They had a child born with serious problems, mental and physical. The child was not expected to live to adulthood; however, some how the odds were beaten. This “child”, for even after he reached his thirty’s and then forty’s, had the mental capacity of a two year old. He had to have everything done for him, feeding, personal habits, getting dressed and everything associated with daily life. He was a full time resident at a special care facility where his parents would spend their weekends visiting with him. Many times his body attempted to fail him; his breathing would stop and it appeared that his life would be over. He managed to pull through and lived to be in his early 40’s before his body gave up.
Those folks who had the opportunity to serve as his care givers, his parents and his other brothers have only marveled at their opportunity to have known this miracle of life, this unfortunate person who had such limited capacity as to wonder if it was worth all that extra effort, that extra expenditure from a limited budget. They considered it an honor to serve in any way they could; to change his soiled clothing, to feed him, to read stories to him and wonder if he understood even a small portion of what had been shared. The idea of aborting him in order to save him from a life of severe challenges was never considered. He was one of God’s children who had been placed in their care. They fulfilled that stewardship and have received the rewards in the form of spiritual enlightenment and an awareness of how God expects all of his children to be treated, regardless of their ability to ever return that service.
Well, I don’t know how I can come near to the eloquence of the previous commenter, so I’ll just say that you pose some important questions. As the mother of a delightful young man who happens to have Down syndrome, I can tell you that when I think of Peter Singer, I really struggle with Jesus’ prescription that we love one another.
Thank you for your post. I wish most people understood the gravity of this issue the way you do.
Thank you both, and I definitely agree.
Barbara…all I can say for Peter Singer is that at least he is consistent. He doesn’t see anything magical about birth that suddenly imparts value to life. If it is disposable prior to birth, why not shortly after? Or even a month later?
I agree there is nothing magical about birth that suddenly makes a baby a person, but obviously go the other direction. The unborn has as much of a right to the basic protection of life that the newborn has.