Follow by Email

There was an error in this gadget
There was an error in this gadget

Sunday, 8 November 2009

Right to life

There's a story going around at the mo about some poor wee baby who's life is in the hands of a court.
A post on Pickled Politics concerns the rights and wrongs of it.
Personally I support the mother in this, and I don’t like the attempt to corner the emotion employede by Ms Ismail. She is deliberately emotive and provocative when that is not what’s needed.
Example:
"hould Baby RB be allowed to live a life of the best possible quality for as long as possible, or should he die too soon, simply because a hospital is not prepared to provide him with the support he requires?"

If the baby is unable to survive, then nature should be allowed to take it’s course. This life is only fleeting.
I cannot make a proper rational arguement about this, but this is what I feel. That may go against my call for the author to be objective, but so be it.
I have experienced this situation (life or death depending on the flick of a switch)

2 comments:

Rana said...

"I cannot make a proper rational arguement about this"
that is the problem for the interested parties in this case

The right to determine our own futures and control our own bodies is one of the most important issues affecting us, more than defence, taxes, more than Europe.

So I don't usually agree with the "let nature take is course" argument for those who are terminally ill, in pain, wanting to die. That's sadism. The rational thing is also the humane thing, to allow them to take enough morphine or similar as they choose.

And obviously the wishes of the mother override those of an infant inside her, even up to 40 weeks

and in this case, I don't know the details to decide if the baby is truly conscious in a human sense - but that is something that does deserve a proper rational argument.

Bearded Socialist said...

I agree. It's a very tough situation for anyone to find themselves in, not one i envy.
If the person is able to choose, they should do so. In this case, the baby cannot, which makes the whole thing harder.
My instincts tell me that if the child is unable to survive without the help of the breathing machines, it is best to remove that help and allow life to follow it's course, but i wouldn't want to back that up with cited evidence.
A rational arguement is the best way to tackle it, addressing the very serious issues involved