Monumental Travesty or Triumph of Justice?
A lot of people getting in an uproar about this case in Nelson, chiefly those with or have a close association with disabled children. By all means this case should not be set as a precedent to allow all parents who do not desire to keep their disabled children to kill them. However, the problem in this case arises over the definition of the word person. If the baby was indeed a person then the father committed the henious crime of infanticide, whereas if the baby was not a person then no such charge could be levelled. The baby's brain had stopped developing as a thirteen-week foetus and, from what I understand, was unable to do even the most instinctive actions such as feeding itself without aid. Was then the baby actually a person? If a person is defined as someone who is able to pursue happiness and experience joy then I doubt whether this baby could actually be called a person ( bearing in mind that I have no medical expertise and would welcome correction from any qualified person). However, if a person is merely a human born of two homo sapiens then the baby was indeed a person. Furthermore, American law has a clause referring to a state defined as brain dead. This state is one where a person's brain ceases to function but their body can be sustained through artificial means. Once a person is declared to be in this state the medical staff charged with their care can legally turn off the life support without being called euthanasia. Now I know that America is not exactly a shining example of what to do, but if the classification of brain dead then it could be accepted in this case.