20050614-0940

The bias is subtle in a current New York Times article talking about the morality of treating children with severe birth defects.1 It starts off okay, talking about how one doctor advocated treating them and another did not, and society gradually took the choice out of the doctors' hands in favor of treating everyone. But then it goes on to find two patients who "wish [they'd] never been born."2 And then it continues to correlate the meningomyelocele cases the rest of the article had been talking about to infants with very low birth weights. While admitting that we can now keep such children alive, it highlights the problems some (many?) such children will have later in life. And ends by asking if we should be treating such children at all.

The problem here is that this is consistently looking at the issue from a quality of life perspective. That is fundamentally wrong. The Church teaches us that even the most handicapped life is worthy of full respect as life, and is worth living. God has seen fit to give life to these babies, it is not for us to decide that they should die, and to deny them basic treatment is to commit murder. Perhaps they will never have a "normal" life, but perhaps the next Beethoven is among them. Or perhaps they will bring a smile to one parents face with the love they can give. Either would be a reason enough to have lived. And certainly their example will make us all appreciate more the gifts we have.