"Youth in Asia?"

BABY IN BRITISH COURT BATTLE DIES
(CNN)

The 13-month-old known as Baby RB has finally passed away after the resolution of a legal battle between his mother and father finally came to an end as the father agreed to have RB's life support stopped in his best interest. Despite his initial objection, the father ultimately agreed to allow his baby boy to pass on "in a planned way, with the administration of a large dose of sedative, the removal of the ventilation tube and his consequent death." Naturally, the ominous ethical question rears its head -- who had the ultimate say? Was the father right in trying to preserve his son's life at any cost or was the mother who judged her son's life not by its length but its quality. The father claimed the baby could play, while the hospital was steadfast in saying his progressive disease caused great discomfort and other respiratory problems. The article itself merely hinted at the issue at it seems almost fruitless to address it in international news stories such as this. The allusions were clear, but the article kept it diplomatic and stuck to the empirical facts.

I've always personally grappled with this issue, especially after the most recent episode of House, M.D. in which the character Chase knowingly misdiagnoses an African dictator (played by the oh-so-suave James Earl Jones) so that he passes away without much of a trace of blame on the diagnostics staff. Was he sacrificing a human life to spare others as a hero, or a demon himself for taking another life? Is the father selfish for wanting to keep his son alive at all costs, or does he believe his son would've wanted to be alive? Sure, it's a stretch connection to a point, but it comes down to the value of a human life and if it is worth preserving in either its most empty form or at the expense of others.


Link to story at cnn.com
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/11/15/uk.baby.dies/index.html