No Valid Argument for Mercy Killing of Infants

Re “Pulling Back the Curtain on the Mercy Killing of Newborns,” Commentary, March 11: Professor Peter Singer’s writings on neonatal euthanasia are based on the premise that it is the best that can happen to those who have to die.

That this argument is untenable requires only imagining its presentation to an adult patient: “We” have decided that death is the best possible alternative for you.

The defenders of neonatal euthanasia also invoke the quality of life of those for whom they care.

When deciding to kill those newborns who would not require permanent respiratory support or other form of active hospital care, it is assumed that their quality of life will be miserable.

The absurdity of this line of reasoning is evident if we hypothetically extend it to those who suffer the pain of hunger and all the other vexations of abject poverty. In this instance we would not consider shortening their suffering by murdering them: We work toward finding a solution for their plight. That so far we have only come up with patchy remedies does not wither our determination.

Singer suggests that the health of the children of a nation is related in some fashion to the fate of some neonates with brain damage.

The debate around neonatal euthanasia distracts those philosophers with the intellectual tools, like Singer, from more important bioethical issues, such as the relation between brain damage and malnutrition.

Jorge Lazareff MD

Brawerman Chair in

Pediatric Neurosurgery

School of Medicine, UCLA

*

At my birth, the umbilical cord was wrapped around my neck and arm, causing a lack of oxygen to my brain. Because of this, I have fairly severe cerebral palsy.

My doctors did not paint a rosy picture about my future. Some even suggested that I may be in a vegetative state the rest of my life.

But here I am -- a college graduate living on my own, writing a letter to the editor of the Los Angeles Times protesting the infanticide of severely disabled infants.

It seems that Singer expects doctors and parents to predict the future for infants with disabilities. They cannot.

Nor can they predict future advances in technology or medicine that would enhance the “quality of life” for these infants.

And who can ever predict the power of the human spirit to triumph over obstacles like physical abnormalities?

Instead of advocating death, maybe Singer should use talents to improve our lives, not to destroy them.

Maria Dewan

Philadelphia