Yet another right-to-life case goes through the courts (wasn’t it just a little while ago that we used to talk about right-to-die cases?). I have a few issues with the doctor’s testimony as reported by the beeb:Quotes from the article are in italics.
A medic known only as Dr S told the court one had to consider the baby’s inability to express his wishes, move or show if he is in any pain or distress.
On the contrary, to consider such is meaningless because there is no data to do the analysis with. He’s suggesting that the court should attempt to read the child’s mind. I hope (but I doubt) that the court considered that an insult against its intelligence.
The doctor said the child would have to live through a period in which he was unable to open his eyes, if the current treatment regime continued.
He would need them opened manually to be able to see, he added.
I suppose this could be bad editorialising, but I sincerely hope that the doctor didn’t intend that to be an argument for letting the child die. The child needs help opening its eyes, therefore its not worth helping it live?
He said continuing the specific treatment would not be in the child’s best interests.
“If you ask me personally whether I could continue it, I would say I would find it difficult, because I have been feeling that what I have been doing as a doctor has been wrong for many months, which is a very difficult position for me to be in.
“That is not just my opinion, but the opinion of many medical professionals who are directly involved in his care,” he added.
I think the saddest thing to come out of cases like these is that increasingly noone wants to take the responisbility. It’s easier for the professionals involved to just let it go. Is there really noone out there willing to care for the child? Or is it less about ‘quality of life’ and more about ‘value for money’?