Simone Aspis, of the British Council of Disabled People, said: "We really do not know how long babies and young people will live for. We should not deny people the opportunity to live for as long as they are able to."
Matthew O’Gorman, a spokesman for the Life Charity, said the matter was “extremely worrying. There is a huge difference between withdrawing invasive treatment that has become futile, and taking action to intentionally end a child's life because treatment is considered to be too expensive or time-consuming."
An inquiry is being carried out about the viability of life by Nuffield Council on Bioethetics after the college made its comments in a submission. A report will be published next week concerning critical care decisions in foetal and neonatal medicine.
A working party has been consulting on the issue on the back of improvements in medical technology which means very premature and ill babies can survive, although some with severe disabilities. The college said: "We would like the working party to think more radically about non-resuscitation, withdrawal of treatment decisions... and active euthanasia, as they are ways of widening the management options available to the sickest of newborns."
Maggie Blott, a member of the college, said these were "very difficult decisions" that would be taken over days, weeks and even months in consultation with the parents.
She also said she felt the debate needed to go ahead.
Doctors have mixed views over the case. John Wyatt, professor of neonatal paediatrics at University College Hospital London, said: "It changes the nature of medicine... into some kind of social engineering."
John Harris, professor of bioethics at the University of Manchester, said it was not a question of whether or not these decisions were taken - as they already were through withdrawing treatment - but how to take them in the most humane way.
November 2006
|
