All very well for the point that a child is incapable of making a decision, but it works both ways, doesn't it? - the child no more has a choice over whether or not to live as well as die.
I'm sure such a decision would not be taken lightly - I mean, who in their right mind would take a childs life so easily if there were any hope at all for a painless survival? Wouldn't the parents as well as the medical team naturally want to do everything that is possible for the childs sake?
Really, if you were faced with your infant that was suffering from irreversable
B]brain damage from bleeding and convulsions;[/B] and diseases where a child could only survive on life support for the rest of its life, such as severe cases of spina bifida and epidermosis bullosa, a rare blistering illness.
[/QUOTE]
Wouldn't you at least want to know that you had the option, the right to decide what was best for your child - and know that it is possible to mercifully stop the agony and prolonged suffering that your infant is incapable of comprehending or escaping. Prolonging the suffering of an infant where there is the option of not having to, and opting for the paternalistic judgement that the infant "has a right to life" above all else - seems to me as just another form of socialised torture. Because after all, doesn't every human being have a right to be free from suffering?Article 5 of the human rights act does say that "No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."
I could not imagine any sentence worse than watching your own infant suffer in a prolonged death and not having any choice over being able to end that suffering peacefully. Everyone is entitled to their own beliefs - but I don't think this should be imposed on another individuals ability to decide what is best.
if everyone shared the same religious or conservative ethical ideals and cast a eye away from euthanasia then the stance towards this would obviously be no due to the conflict in belief. But the fact is; not everyone shares the same belief and it just seems an extremely thwarted viewpoint to want to impose your own personal ideological beliefs in analysing a situation that occurs in many different contexts to many different people. In my opinion this sort of belief is precisely the ideologies of the government and the church deadset on securing a form of institutionalised facism through the control of what should be a personal right. It is precisely this type of control which is the architecture constructed around us to prevent us from seeing where we really are being denied individual rights. It is precisely this type of state-(with religous undertones)-sanctioned control over personal choice that should really be up to the individual and the medical proffesional in determining the safest and more agreeable outcome for the child.
Infanticide has been accepted in societies since the begining of time and only recent history has seen it as morally repugnant. In ancient Rome or greece, deformed or sick infants were rejected quite freely and left out on the rocks to die by exposure. Other roman methods were to smear opium on the breast and let the child suck it to die a more peaceful drug induced death. Surely society and progress today has come so far as to be enable us to see beyond and free ourselves from certain restrictive morals and values and controls so as to be able to allow an individual right - despite what various doctines say - allowing the freedom of choice - of being able to opt for a humane and legal death rather than be forced to prolong unneccesarily physical and mental anguish.
I think this is a step in the right direction, however I agree that this sort of thing also risks a degree of legalised infanticide - but in the case of
B]brain damage from bleeding and convulsions;[/B] and diseases where a child could only survive on life support for the rest of its life, such as severe cases of spina bifida and epidermosis bullosa, a rare blistering illness.
[/QUOTE] And with consent of parents and the care of a proffesional medical team, I don't see anything wrong with choosing a humane option in order to prevent unnecessary suffering. Consequently; it is the state/religious values that stack against "all odds" and easily dismiss this type of situation on "moral" or "ethical" grounds that should come under scrutiny NOT the progressive measure of a country that is far ahead and far more in touch with reality, not to mention
the people than most others in the western world.
