Written is response to reading Euthanasia: What's age got to do with it? by John-Henry Westen in today's Straits Times.

Doctors in Britain are trying to get infant euthanasia legalised, something which they call post-partum abortion. They want to be able to initiate it for severely disabled infants as a safer option that will not harm the mother as much as an end-term abortion. Nothing could be more horrific. Let me clarify, that first, I have nothing against abortions before the spinal column has formed, because I don't think that a ball of cells counts as an individual. I also have no problem with abortions done to save the life of the mother. However, late term abortions, where the foetus has developed some form of consciousness is already bad enough. Now, if the doctors get their way, there's no protecting disabled infants whose parents would rather not have them.

Euthanasia is acceptable only because it is the choice made by the individual himself when he wants to escape unbearable pain that will only end after a long-drawn out death. But infant euthanasia is hardly consensual, which is the first reason why it is so wrong. A baby cannot be asked whether it wants to live or die, neither has it developed the mental faculties to make such a choice. It is much better to let nature take its course rather than let other people decide when it's time for a newborn to die. Admittedly, the baby is going to suffer, but this can be alleviated with palleative care.

Suffering is something that some can bear better than others, and is hardly quantifiable. Even if it was, no one knows if the person in question would rather live or die. Granted, in some instances, if the infants were able to make such a choice, many of them would choose to die. But to make the other error of killing an individual that wants to live outweighs letting nature take its painful course.

The article defended its stand first by saying that we should not discriminate the right to die by age. If this were possible, I would agree with the writer. But as established, the right to die has to be a free choice, not a choice made for you. Then the writer says that Holland has implemented this law without the sky falling, so we should all be ok. The non-occurrence of apocalypse is not a good defence for the existence of a bad law. A bad law may not cause total destruction, but the damage done is still principally unacceptable.

Furthermore, there's the slippery slope argument, which is used in about everything and wuite tiresome. But it is here that it is most applicable and the consequences are closer than ever. If we do decide that it is ethically acceptable to kill a severely disabled newborn, then what would stop us from deciding that killing a severely disabled, mentally retarded person to "ease his suffering"? What next? Will we then decide that people with mental illnesses also have lives not worth living, and kill them too? The most disturbing thing is that the article suggests this very thing, that parents be allowed to euthanise their children even in early childhood or even adolescence when severe autism, manic-depressive disorder, and schizophrenia become apparent.

The writer is out of his mind when he tells us that it is acceptable to choose for a large number of children whether they deserve to live. Firstly is is wrong to take away the right to life of an innocent, in fact, from anybody who does not directly threaten your immediate existence. (I am also against the death penalty, but that's another argument.) Secondly, if Britain does decide to follow Holland's example, then they are on the precipice of far worse things. What kind of society do we want? One that fights as hard as it can to save a human life while respecting the freedom of choice, or one that makes the choice for you, essentially abandoning you when you need it most?