The pro-life community has been buzzing about the proposal by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecology to discuss actively euthanizing sick and disabled newborns in England. Read about it in this TimesOnline article.
There are several important points to this article. The first and most important is that fact that there is no doubt eugenic abortion leads to infanticide:
The college’s submission was also welcomed by John Harris, a member of the government’s Human Genetics Commission and professor of bioethics at Manchester University. “We can terminate for serious foetal abnormality up to term but cannot kill a newborn. What do people think has happened in the passage down the birth canal to make it okay to kill the foetus at one end of the birth canal but not at the other?” he said.
Secondly, is this point that was e-mailed to me by a reader:
Notice that this call for eugenic infanticide is coming from the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecology, not from the college of pediatricians or family practitioners. But, of course, years of performing abortions and prescribing contraceptives has had no effect on the Royal College's moral compass! Yeah, right.
She is right. The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecology slogan is:
Setting Standards to Improve Women's Health
Clearly, they have the best interest of the newborn at heart. I would also add to this "pro-death lovefest" those in "ethics" and my beloved field of genetics who often reduce people to their genes. The above article subtly bolsters my point:
Geneticists and medical ethicists supported the proposal — as did the mother of a severely disabled child — but a prominent children’s doctor described it as “social engineering”.
Not surprising that the doctors that actually care for sick newborns are against killing them. Go figure. And finally, in case you think this is about compassion for the disabled or sick infant consider these snippets:
The college is arguing that “active euthanasia” should be considered for the overall good of families, to spare parents the emotional burden and financial hardship of bringing up the sickest babies...“A very disabled child can mean a disabled family,” it says. “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 parents would be more confident about continuing a pregnancy and taking a risk on outcome.”
Edna Kennedy of Newcastle upon Tyne, whose son suffered epidermolysis bullosa, said: “In extremely controlled circumstances, where the baby is really suffering, it should be an option for the mother.”
Talk Back - leave a comment