[C Elegans]

I think the issue of euthanisia of infants is a difficult question from an ethical perspective of rights, but a less difficult issue from a medical and humanitarian perspective, at least presently.

Children who are born with very severe, irreversible brain injuries to a degree that development of self-awareness is impossible, or in states of such pain that they need to be in a coma in order not to suffer, should IMO be allowed to die for their own sake and for their parents sake.

Media has a tendency to describe cases like this in a vague way that is aimed to appeal to people's emotion, but the infants who are given euthanesia are so incredibly injured so most people cannot imagine. We are not talking about Down's syndrom or other retardation here, we are talking about children born with brain damages that will not ever allow for a state of consciousness that is able to do anything else than respond automatically to sensory stimuli.

I understand the argument that infants have no free will and that we cannot say what degree of pain or handicap a person would be willing to suffer in order to live, but you have to understand that the children given euthanisia (at least in Western Europe) will never be able to develop such a thing as free will, or any will.

For those who believe in a transcendent level of an individual, the problem is of course that something "spritual", a soul or similar, could be alive since it has no connection to the brain, and thus, the "soul" is because the brain is dead. For us who do not believe in human life outside the human brain, the issue is less difficult I think.

The issue of euthanesia has arisen as a consequence to the development of techniques that makes it possible to keep children alive who were born far, far earlier than they would have survived naturally. Only 10-15 years ago, many of these children would not have survived more than a few days or weeks.

I understand the concern for a "slippery slope", ie if this happens now, what will happen next? One day we may kill children because they are born deaf or with minor diseases? This can be avoided with strict ethical laws. It's like saying we shouldn't disallow rape because who knows what happens next, maybe sex between consenting adults will be prohibited one day. The slippery slope can be avoided with precise definitions that are kept updated to include problems that arise from new technological advancements. Also, I think only medical professionals should take the decision. Parents do not know the diseases and injuries of their children better because they are parents. Being a parent is not being an expert. I don't think parents should have ultimate rights to their children, children is not a material possession.

In the UK, there was a recent case where parents who were Jehova's witnesses or similar took the case of their prematurely born baby daugther to court. AFAIK it was the first case ever in the UK where parents had actually opposed the doctor's. The baby had severe irreversable brain and lung damage and was dependant on life sustaining support. The parents realised the girl's suffered immensely and that she had severe irreversible injuries, but they believed a miracle could happen, and thus did not want the life support to be switched off.