The Catholic bulletin. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1911-1995, 1916-01-01
NOVEL POINTS OF THE LAW.
LEADING LAW JOURNAL SAYS
PHYSICIAN SHOULD HAVE
OPERATED ON RoLLlNGER
4 BABY.

1 BABY.
The Central Law Journal, one oi
the leading Legal periodicals OF the
country, bases q leading editorial on
the death of the detective baby in
Chicago and makes ont a case based
both on law and decisions which re-
quired the physician to operate, says
i the New York Sun Of December S. 1t
lrefers to the Declaration of Independ-
ence and to the amendment of the
Federal Constitution forbidding a
State from depsiying any person of
life without due process of law, and
| also from denying to amy person
within it's jurisdiction equal protec-
tion of the laws The right Of par
ent to offer a means for the impair
ment of child's life or its destruc-
| tion is questioned
Statutes bearing on the question
are referred to, among them q law
of Illinois making it a criminal of
fence to put Il Guild in peril OF any
| injury to health or limb. fLynam VS..
People, 65 Ill. APP G87.) "a New York
statute Furnishes US q wrong to Il
child the permitting of its life to be
endangered and taking no steps to
save that life. lfowley VS.. People,
S3 N Y, 464).S The editorial then
says:
| terboco cto+utoc ~, lIna,, tlo 4bnarv
that every child has an inalienable
right to life and certain persons hav-
| ing the right Of custody are punish
able for neglectiI@ to care for that
life. Nowhere is it suggested that
custody imposes any other than duty
to a child as u living senffent being.
If parent has merely a duty to pre-
serve the life and health OF a child
| it certainly would rot seem to be the
arbiter Of its deata And one agree
ing with the paFcut that neglect to
care for its lie Is 10 be in pursuance
Eof purpose thai atg death without
caTe viii probab1y occur ppears to
US opposed to es 7finnipSe il our
| law.
& + 4
"H our Government regards the
right to life as prescribed, instead Of
further endangered by our law, what
right has any citizen to agree for the
benefit of society that particular
tchild is not entitled to the blessing
of life? And may any one determine
that there is no deprivation Of the
blessing of life as to any being? Ii
| he has reason that satisfies him,
may not another have another rea-
son that satisfies him that there is
no blessing in our particular life?
The result of sucn reasoning would
not be in furtherance of government,
but in direct support of anarchy. We
have shown, we think, that an agree
ment with parent Tor a child to be
permitted to die from neglect is one
| to accomplish a crime. 1t therefore
| excuses no one that he makes such an
agreement But it may be evidence
against him of deliberation to perpe-
trate crime. What crime may this
tbe if death results?'
The editorial then refers to the CON
tention that the child was permitted
to die because it was "monstrosity
| in deformfty'' and probably lacked
brain power and says:
"Waiyihg, however, the question Of
ultimate benefit to society in the
childs not being permitted to live,
first it is denied that there is any
distinction under our law in the right
of a defective child to life and of one
that. is normal Secondly, if there
lis such distinction, law should pro-
vide the means for its appiscation.
Until this is done the distinction is
non-existent. In conclusion we may
say if the physician assumes to act
for the parent he stands in loco
PARENTS and is bound as the parent
would have been bound for neglect to
save the. life of the child. Ii this doc.
tors position is right and lawful, then
the eugenics may urge that for moral
effectiveness child may upon con
sent of parent be neglected though
he surely will die from the neglect
/ The upshot of all this is that physical
or moral Effectiveness may be sub
mitted to viyisection as the supreme
requirement OF science. And SO the
fame of Herod will pale its Intellectual
/ fires
1--WE do not wish to assail this doe
tors moral view we have nothing ii
q law journal to say about that. We
do say, however, that he seems never
to have asked himself how he, al
arbiter of death, would stand as tc
the law of the country where he
lives
/ 90