This--Outrage as Church backs calls for severely disabled babies to be killed at birth--is making the rounds of the internet (I've seen it at four or five different sites already).
The lede:
The Church of England has broken with tradition dogma by calling for doctors to be allowed to let sick newborn babies die.Christians have long argued that life should preserved at all costs - but a bishop representing the national church has now sparked controversy by arguing that there are occasions when it is compassionate to leave a severely disabled child to die.
And the Bishop of Southwark, Tom Butler, who is the vice chair of the Church of England's Mission and Public Affairs Council, has also argued that the high financial cost of keeping desperately ill babies alive should be a factor in life or death decisions.
Lest you think this is a misquote or misleading summary, listen to the following:
In the Church of England's contribution to the inquiry, Bishop Butler wrote: "It may in some circumstances be right to choose to withold or withdraw treatment, knowing it will possibly, probably, or even certainly result in death."The church stressed that it was not saying some lives were not worth living, but said there were "strong proportionate reasons" for "overriding the presupposition that life should be maintained".
The bishop's submission continued: "There may be occasions where, for a Christian, compassion will override the 'rule' that life should inevitably be preserved.
"Disproportionate treatment for the sake of prolonging life is an example of this.
The church said it would support the potentially fatal withdrawal of treatment only if all alternatives had been considered, "so that the possibly lethal act would only be performed with manifest reluctance."
Yet the Revd Butler's submission makes clear that there are a wide range of acceptable reasons to withdraw care from a child - with the cost of the care among the considerations.
"Great caution should be exercised in brining questions of cost into the equation when considering what treatment might be provided," he wrote.
"The principle of justice inevitably means that the potential cost of treatment itself, the longer term costs of health care and education and opportunity cost to the NHS in terms of saving other lives have to be considered."
The church also urges all the parties involved in care for critically ill babies should be realistic in their expectations, demands, and claims.
Horrifying. Nauseauting. Infuriating . . . that this man would claim to represent Christian thought. He's a disgrace and should be deposed.
Posted by Clifton at November 13, 2006 11:27 PM | TrackBackI have also seen this headline-- and read the articles, and did some digging. I think, with due respect, that the slant of the reporting may be misleading.
Cliff, you know me. You know my views on this subject. Life is a sacred gift from God, to be cherished and protected, and not ever abused or mistreated.
That being said... I have to say that I cannot agree with the "at all costs" approach. Think about it: is it not possibly the act of a believing Christian to allow a beloved child (or person of any age, really) to pass into the arms of an infinitely loving Savior, rather than artificially and painfully prolonging suffering for an unspecified period that will bring no healing and relief in this life? Is it not possible that our efforts to delay and deny the reality of death can in and of themselves become abusive? That "treatment" can in fact become mistreatment-- both of the child and those who love him/her?
I have served as a hospital chaplain in neonatal intensive care, at a trauma center equipped to treat the most critical of infants. "Treatment options" often come down to the point of being able to do no more than maintain heartbeat and respiration. The methods to attempt this can be themselves horrific to both parents and caregivers called upon to administer them upon amazingly tiny, incredibly fragile bodies who are simply not equipped to exist outside the womb.
The "at all costs" mentality seems to me, quite frankly, a response born of fear, rather than faith.
Posted by: Jane Ellen+ at November 14, 2006 09:59 AMThere is a difference between acting to hasten death and allowing natural death to take its normal course (with appropriate alleviation of pain to the degree that that is possible). And that difference is clear. We do not kill to alleviate pain and suffering. That is a monstrous and hideous evil. Even more unspeakable is to kill because it costs too much money.
I nowhere have ever advocated prolonging life at all costs, but that a bishop would advocate such a merciless, calculating and unChristian approach to this matter--in the name of Christ no less--is beyond the pale.
Posted by: Clifton D. Healy at November 14, 2006 09:28 PM