“The Church of England believes doctors should be given the right to
withhold treatment from some seriously disabled newborn babies in exceptional circumstances.”
“The view comes in a submission from the church to a British medical ethics committee looking at the implications of keeping severely premature babies alive through technological advances.”
“The Observer reported that the church, led by the head of the world’s Anglicans Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, could not accept the view that the life of any baby is not worth living. But it added there were ‘strong proportionate reasons’ for ‘overriding the presupposition that life should be maintained.’ "
*Quotes taken from The Sun, Monday, 13th November 2006, page 14.
The right to life for newborns is no longer absolute. The irony is, the charge against the sanctity of human life did not come from a secular body, but from the Church of England. It was not a non-governmental organization or social welfare group who submitted this view to a British medical ethics committee. The church did it.
Where are the lines? Has the enemy broken through the lines in Britain? Is what we’re seeing here enemy fire or friendly fire?
The presupposition to life may be arguable in the naturalistic worldview, where the maintenance of disabled children is a liability to the economy, and a long term cause of sociological problems. It may be argued that a disabled child may not want to live with such hampering disability anyway. It may even be argued that the right to the dignity or quality of life is higher than the right to life itself. Oh, the psychological trauma the child will have to go through. Oh, the burden it will add to its already dysfunctional family (assuming that it was even born into a family in the first place). But has the church abandoned a theistic worldview to embrace a naturalistic one?
Instead of arguing on behalf of the value of human life, the Church of England championed the right for doctors to withhold treatment in exceptional circumstances. It was not the parents’ right that was championed. It was not even the baby’s right that was championed. It was the doctor’s right.
How exceptional can a circumstance be to override the presupposition that life should be maintained? If there is, what qualifies such a circumstance? How much further can the acceptance of “exceptional circumstances” be pushed? How different is this from euthanasia, or from the people’s right to death? How far is it really, from extending this step towards social engineering?
Is that all the sanctity of life means? A mere presupposition? A baseless belief that is based only on human cultural history? For all people, the church of Christ should know that the right to life is not a fallible presupposition. God’s view on the value of human life is as basic as the value of Christ’s sacrifice to preserve life eternally.
Now, it is up to the British medical ethics committee to fight on God’s behalf against the Church of England.
Do we have to fix bayonets already?
withhold treatment from some seriously disabled newborn babies in exceptional circumstances.”“The view comes in a submission from the church to a British medical ethics committee looking at the implications of keeping severely premature babies alive through technological advances.”
“The Observer reported that the church, led by the head of the world’s Anglicans Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, could not accept the view that the life of any baby is not worth living. But it added there were ‘strong proportionate reasons’ for ‘overriding the presupposition that life should be maintained.’ "
*Quotes taken from The Sun, Monday, 13th November 2006, page 14.
The right to life for newborns is no longer absolute. The irony is, the charge against the sanctity of human life did not come from a secular body, but from the Church of England. It was not a non-governmental organization or social welfare group who submitted this view to a British medical ethics committee. The church did it.
Where are the lines? Has the enemy broken through the lines in Britain? Is what we’re seeing here enemy fire or friendly fire?
The presupposition to life may be arguable in the naturalistic worldview, where the maintenance of disabled children is a liability to the economy, and a long term cause of sociological problems. It may be argued that a disabled child may not want to live with such hampering disability anyway. It may even be argued that the right to the dignity or quality of life is higher than the right to life itself. Oh, the psychological trauma the child will have to go through. Oh, the burden it will add to its already dysfunctional family (assuming that it was even born into a family in the first place). But has the church abandoned a theistic worldview to embrace a naturalistic one?
Instead of arguing on behalf of the value of human life, the Church of England championed the right for doctors to withhold treatment in exceptional circumstances. It was not the parents’ right that was championed. It was not even the baby’s right that was championed. It was the doctor’s right.
How exceptional can a circumstance be to override the presupposition that life should be maintained? If there is, what qualifies such a circumstance? How much further can the acceptance of “exceptional circumstances” be pushed? How different is this from euthanasia, or from the people’s right to death? How far is it really, from extending this step towards social engineering?
Is that all the sanctity of life means? A mere presupposition? A baseless belief that is based only on human cultural history? For all people, the church of Christ should know that the right to life is not a fallible presupposition. God’s view on the value of human life is as basic as the value of Christ’s sacrifice to preserve life eternally.
Now, it is up to the British medical ethics committee to fight on God’s behalf against the Church of England.
Do we have to fix bayonets already?
No comments:
Post a Comment