A debate over the killings of disabled infants has been requested by the UK’s Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Although withholding treatment is already allowed in the UK, the debate will center on whether or not active infanticide of disabled babies should be legalized.
What is the morally significant difference between withholding treatment necessary for the disabled infant’s survival and actively giving it a lethal injection?
Every day across the world (and the country), doctors and parents agree to let disabled or terminally ill patients die by not treating them. Those who advocate infanticide and involuntary euthanasia (euthanasia on those who lack the capacity to make life-and-death decisions) are merely saying that rather than drawing out these painful deaths (passively killing them) we simply give these patients a shot that will end their lives painlessly (actively killing them.
If doctors are letting those with terminal diseases die anyway, why shouldn’t we allow them to do it in a way that involves as little pain and suffering as possible?
Why do you want to increase these patients’ pain?