Baby Charlotte
Michelle Malkin blogged recently about the Life of Baby Charlotte, a two-year old brain-damaged toddler whom a British High Court judge has decided should not be resuscitated despite her parents' adamant wishes that her life be saved if possible. These life issues seem to crop up with greater frequency, and due to the current utilitarian view of life, they usually end the same sad way. If we allow the killing of babies in the womb, why should we strive to save a brain-damaged toddler, whom society has decided is worthless since she'll never "produce" anything? (What do you think would have happened to Helen Keller were she born today, assuming she made it past any tests that might have detected her handicaps?)
Charlotte's doctors are allowed to refuse resuscitation if they "feel" that it is in Charlotte's "best interest." Shouldn't parents be the ultimate arbiter of their own child's best interest, unless they can be shown to have exercised real neglect or to have caused those children actual harm? Medical science has not yet (nor probably ever will) reached a state where it can proclaim when someone will die with any great accuracy. The father of my close friend was given 6 months to live, and he went for 2 years, time that was very important for his own reconciliation with God and with some family members. If parents are robbed of the decision whether resuscitation is "extreme treatment" to try to keep their daughter alive, they will spend the rest of their lives knowing that doctors killed their child. Baby Charlotte should be resuscitated. We must value life since it made by God in His image.