Posted 6/02/2007 06:04:00 PM by Douglas

I wonder if Peter Singer has some kind of car that runs off his own blisteringly clever yet unsustainable philosophical arguments or if its boiler is fired with the bodies of dead babies and mangled kittens and puppies? This makes me wonder less.

In these circumstances, what should doctors—and society—do? Should they treat all children as best they can? Should they draw a line, say at twenty-four weeks, and say that no child born prior to that cut-off should be treated? A policy of not treating babies born earlier than twenty-four weeks would save the considerable expense of medical treatment that is likely to prove futile, as well as the need to support severely disabled children who do survive. But it would also be harsh on couples who have had difficulty in conceiving and whose premature infant represents perhaps their last chance at having a child. Amillia’s parents may have been in that category. If the parents understand the situation, and are ready to welcome a severely disabled child into their family and give that child all the love and care they can, should a comparatively wealthy, industrialized country simply say, “No, your child was born too early”?

Do people that wait too long to have kids deserve more publicly funded health care when they have premature babies? Most people in America, before our health care gets totally socialized, foot the bill themselves, but I don't think so. I'm also not vying to be the one that makes that call, unlike Singer. But there's something fundamentally wrong with a society that doesn't see the inherent value of caring for the next generation. One exception? Peter Singer as an infant.