Monday, November 06, 2006

Euthanasia for infants?

According to this BBC "health" article, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists in the UK are apparently requesting that the Nuffield Council on Bioethics consider "more radically about non-resuscitation, withdrawal of treatment decisions... and active euthanasia, as they are ways of widening the management options available to the sickest of newborns." The Nuffield Council on Bioethics is an independent body that examines the ethics of the advances in biology and medicine.

I only know what the BBC article says, which isn't much, about the Royal College's request. However, it still raises some serious ethical issues for me. First, how would they define seriously ill children/infants? The article cites the increase of premature babies surviving and having significant disabilities as part of the reason for the request from the Royal College. However, no one can predict accurately which premature infants will have profound disabilities and which will end up being healthy children. Granted, trauma at birth such as a hemorraghe indicates a high probability of future disability but not always. Still, many people have had poor health or major health problems at some point in infancy or early life. Does that mean that we should euthanize them? I would say no.

So, no one can predict at birth who will survive and lead a healthy life and who won't. That goes for infants not born prematurely, also. A seemingly healthy infant can have seizures later. A child can have a head injury. An otherwise healthy baby could die from SIDS.

The other part of this issue is the stress on the family that having a member with a profound disability can cause. Having children is stressful. Having a child with a disability is even more stressful. However, that does not mean that the families or children have a reduced quality of life? A child with a disability can have a good quality of life. We may not judge their quality of life as high or good by our standards, but if the people are happy, isn't that good quality of life? I know, happiness is only one quality of life indicator. But how do we really judge someone else's quality of life?

Further, how do we judge the worth of someone else's life, at any age? And isn't that really what the Royal College is asking the Nuffield Council to do?

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Sometimes I wonder why those options are considered. Is it because of the cost of keeping "those" babies alive? Is it really about quality of life for those babies? I would think with todays sophisticated technology they would be trying to reduce the "option" of euthanasia.