The Detroit times., 1915-12-11

BY Or. FRANK CRANE
Copyright. 1915, by Frank Crane)

"A surgeon In the German-American
hospital of Chicago has aroused lively
discussion throughout the country hy re-
fusing to save four-day -old babys life
by an operation because the child was
defective.
AS far as experts could see, the little
one, if it had lived, would have been a
cripple in body and subnormal in mind.
Learning this, the mother weepingly
gave her consent to relieving her child
from what unquestionably would have
been life of wretchedness.
There are some who contend that un-
der any and all circumstances it is the
duty of medical men to save life and to
prolong it as long as possible. They hold
it is dangerous, and would occasion
scandalous and criminal deeds, to place
in the hands of doctor the legal right
to prescribe death.
Others argue that if life is certain to
be, as far as human intelligence can de-
termine, a curse and an agony to its pos
SCISSOR, perpetual distress to those
around him, and menace to society it
self. it is but misguided mercy to save it.
One physician of note says: 'The
mere bitter facts that seven-eighths Of
our paupers, nine-tenths of our prosti-
tutes, and three-quarters of our crimi-
nails are feeble-minded, and that 80 per
cent of all feeble-minded girls become
the mothers of ilegitimate children be-
fore they are II, are sufficient and
convincing commentary upon the kind
of influence which is likely to surround
the lives of the feeble-minded."
To form correct judgment we should
perceive that the question of whether or
not defective should be permitted to
live is not one but two questions.
First, is death in certain clear cases
not preferable to life, for all parties con-
cerned for the unfortunate, for his par
ents. and for the state? On this propo-
sition most will agree, provided there is
no doubt that the child will surely be
defective enough to make his existence
burden.
Second who is to decide this? This is
really where the divergence of opinion
occurs.
And the only satisfactory answer is.
the state.
SO grave a matter should not be left
to the parent nor to the physician. They
should not be laden with so great re-
sponsibility.
But the state is the proper party to
act The state already assumes the
rights of life and death. 1t controls
birth, inasmuch as it prescribes regula-
tions for marriage, issuing license and
keeping register in permitted cases,
and refusing to allow others to mate.
1t administers death, as in instances
of the capital punishment of criminals.
In no other place does this power over
birth and death lodge legally.
The solution Of our problem is there
fore indicated. There should be some
sort of tribunal, composed of experienced
physicians. judges and citizens of stand
ing and intelligence, to whom all cases
of the advisability of permitting mani
festly deficient child to live should be re-
ferred.
This court should be duly appointed
by the responsible civic authorities and
should make public record of their de-
cisons and the grounds for them.
Life is not always an inalienable right.
1t is now revocable by the state And if
euthanasia is to be practised at all it
should be under the charge of the state.
A HOME STAYING TRAVELOGUE