Church: Some very sick babies should be let to die
The Church of England has said that under exceptional cases, some very sick babies should be let to die. It might be better to let the baby die than live.
Fair enough. Why go for a life full of pain and trauma and a fear hanging by the thinnest of threads of imminent demise?
But then, here comes an interesting point - it is also suggested that the enormous cost implication of keeping the child alive on the NHS (remember, we are talking England here) and on the parents should be a factor in deciding whether or not the baby should be kept alive!!
I don't like this. On a health basis, it is a cogent argument, but not on an economic basis. It just doesn't sound fair that babies should be allowed to die because there is no money to keep them alive. But do we then keep babies alive and let other's die? Is this what it always comes to?
Fair enough. Why go for a life full of pain and trauma and a fear hanging by the thinnest of threads of imminent demise?
But then, here comes an interesting point - it is also suggested that the enormous cost implication of keeping the child alive on the NHS (remember, we are talking England here) and on the parents should be a factor in deciding whether or not the baby should be kept alive!!
I don't like this. On a health basis, it is a cogent argument, but not on an economic basis. It just doesn't sound fair that babies should be allowed to die because there is no money to keep them alive. But do we then keep babies alive and let other's die? Is this what it always comes to?
posted by Raghav at 4:33 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home