If the doctor had thought fit to suggest that our baby should be allowed to die rather than struggle for life, frankly I do not know how I would have reacted. Fortunately, no such suggestion was made, and we were immediately given a great deal of help and support which enabled us to be rather more optimistic. It is I think unfair both to the doctor and the child to place such a burden of judgment on one person. Particularly worrying is the assumption which seemed to be made in the Arthur case, that rejection of a child by the parents was sufficient justification for permitting, if not causing, the child to die. This point seemed to have been settled in another legal case earlier this year when the court stepped in to permit an operation on another Down's baby whose parents had earlier refused consent.
Some attention also needs to be paid to the means used to permit death.
To leave a medical condition untreated is one thing, to sedate an otherwise healthy baby so that it will not demand food, is to me quite another, and quite unacceptable. This is one area where it is clearly in the competence of the medical profession to codify what sort of treatment is ethically justifiable. Many decisions in this field are based on assumptions, often unstated, about the future quality of life available to a severely handicapped person. This is dangerous ground for two reasons. In any case, the present dearth of facilities for the handicapped reflects a scale of social priorities which could easily alter, and more material resources could greatly improve the quality of life of many disabled people.