Dr. Karl Brandt explained the aim: "The objective was to obtain possession of these abortions and destroy them as soon as possible after they had been brought into the world."  (Henry Friedlander: The Origins of Nazi Genocide: From Euthanasia to the Final Solution (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1995, PP.57-8) "A questionnaire was prepared in which the attending physician provided a detailed history. The doctors also made predictions about the baby's future quality of life. The questionnaires were then sent to a committee of physicians who determined whether to give the child a mark of "+", which recommended extermination." (Forgotten Crimes: The Holocaust and people with Disabilities.  A Report by Disability Rights Advocates, California, 2001 pp. 13-14.) Perhaps the only excuse for the atrocities being proposed by these authors today is that they are either too callow or too ignorant of the Nazi precedents to what they are advocating to resurrect in this current Journal article. We should not go down that path again. John Chryostomon Promoting truth might actually be a good idea. David Cook The authors argue that the value of humans is contingent. They speak of, "children with severe abnormalities whose lives can be expected to be not worth living."  Their ethic aligns them to "life unworthy of life" of 1940's Germany. People with conditions like Downs Syndrome can be done away with as a matter of convenience in their ethical construct. I have a brother with Downs Syndrome and he is happy and harmless