The Court ruled in favor of the parents in the Baby MB case. Good. This is one of those “benefit of the doubt” cases, in which the benefit should go to life and respecting the desires of the child’s parents. Doctors and bioethicists, however well intentioned, should not be able to substitute their values for those of patient or, as in this case, family. This is not to say that a parent’s desire to receive (or reject)treatment on behalf of their child should never be overruled. But it seems to me that unless the parental choice rises to the level of abuse (such as refusing normal life saving surgery or insisting, say, demanding repeated amputations for a baby dying of gangrene), the values of doctors or bioethicists should not rule.
Dear Reader,
Can I be direct with you?
War abroad. Socialists on the rise. AI upending human life. Endless uproar online. The modern attention economy doesn’t want readers — it wants users enslaved to the tyranny of the present.
First Things is the antidote: literary excellence, timeless truths, and a fixed point of reference in a culture that has lost its bearings.
But we can’t do it without readers like you.
Our goal: Raise $150,000 by November 1 to sustain First Things in the year ahead.
Your gift anchors readers in the permanent things.
Make your Fall Campaign gift now using the button below.
If you have any questions or would like more information, please contact Giovanni Del Piero, Director of the Editor’s Circle, at gdelpiero@firstthings.com or 212-627-1985.
YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE
The Church in the Age of Therapy
In 1966, Philip Rieff wrote in The Triumph of the Therapeutic that “Religious man was born to…
Canada’s Deadliest Blind Spot
On September 20, the Daily Mail ran a story with the provocative headline, “Our 83-year-old Christian grandmother…
The Faithful Joy of Dolly Parton and Fulton Sheen
Dolly Parton and Fulton Sheen seem to have had little in common. She favored rhinestones; he wore…
