Oh Baby

Today's Observer features a piece (here) about the Church of England agreeing in its contribution to a recent inquiry that in some cases premature babies ought not to be kept alive - in other words, that euthanasia can be a favourable option.

Personally, I am appalled at, although unshocked by, the Church's hypocrisy considering that the abortion section of its website features the biblical quote 'All human life, including life developing in the womb, is created by God in his own image and is, therefore, to be nurtured, supported and protected'.

I suppose, though, that a branch of Christianity created for the purpose of bending national law to suit the powers that be (Henry viii's divorce) cannot really be expected to unconditionally maintain its morals.

In the report Church of England leaders say that the 'enormous cost implications to the NHS of keeping very premature and sick babies alive with invasive medical care and the burden on the parents should also be taken into consideration.' (The Observer)

This is the kind of thing that really makes me feel sick.

A 'burden on the parents'? The parents of Charlotte Wyatt, the baby famously kept alive after a court battle last year, would surely not consider having her alive any more of a burden than the guilt and grief of having lost her to euthanasia.

They have admittedly found it extremely difficult to provide her with the care she needs, and she is subsequently living in care. But why is this something that should be called into question? The families of terminally ill patients are not expected to care for them at home, and I wouldn't like to imagine the outrage if doctors wanted to give them a lethal injection to economise or ease the 'burden' on their families.

The parents of these babies are citizens who (presumably) have paid taxes for most of their lives. Their children deserve the same entitlement to health care as everyone else's.

As the children's nearest relatives, they are the only ones who should be able to speak for the child in the absence of its ability to defend itself.

People may argue that the children's parents should not be allowed to decide if they are kept alive as their love for their offspring is likely to impair their judgment of what is in the best interest of their baby.

But how is the Church a better judge of what is in the best interest of a premature baby if its overriding concern is NHS cost, making their view just as likely to be biased?

If a child can be kept alive, it should receive the treatment that will achieve this. Anyone else suffering from a life-threatening illness receives this privilege. If we start evaluating who is more entitled to life than others, we are playing God and on extremely dangerous ground.

UK taxes go towards keeping mass murderers and rapists alive because the UK is against capital punishment. These people are evil and will never be allowed to contribute to society again, but are kept alive, largely because in some cases the judiciary fails and we may end up executing innocent people.

But doesn't this apply to these premature babies? No one can know beyond a shadow of a doubt how much pain they are in, and therefore euthanasia is surely out of the question.

No one has the right to end another's life, and that everyone has the right to any treatment that will keep them alive. This is the national sentiment of the UK, and there is no room for selectiveness. Otherwise, questions about who is authorised to implement such selection create the kind of discrepancies we are now seeing.