What does "intentional killing" mean in medical parlance anyway?  Apparently, it's considered acceptable to withdraw food & water, and let the person starve to death slowly, but it's not OK to add enough morphine into their IV-drip to let them drift peacefully to sleep.  I find this particular distinction to be rather ludicrous.  Either we do everything possible to keep someone alive, or if there is no chance and the person wishes to end it, we should let them die, peacefully.  I now know one man who is not in jail only because he was old & sick when he gave his wife, who was dying by inches of cancer, a lethal dose of the morphine she was on for pain relief.  Would it have been better for anyone at all for her to have spent another month on a continuous morphine drip, half awake, half alive, and in pain whenever conscious?  I don't think so.

I also know a woman who gave birth to an baby with anencephaly, with half its brain missing.  She went through birth, and watched her child fed by machines, knowing there was no chance it could survive.  Should she have been allowed to let the baby die, in peace, instead of suffering for four days?  (According to her doctors since the baby's brain was missing cognitive function it was not suffering.  But the mother certainly was.)

It's high time we allow this discussion to happen, instead of reflexively flinching from a hard subject.

The newspaper reported that the college was not formally calling for active euthanasia to be introduced, but wanted the mercy killing of newborn babies to be debated by society.

I think that's perfectly reasonable, and far from crossing a bright line. Take away the doctors, the medical establishment, all of it. Think about a family with a newborn child. Imagine the most terrible affliction you can call to mind, then ask yourself honestly if that family won't have to consider killing that child to keep it from suffering. I think this is a perfectly human problem, and as such, there's no reason we shouldn't talk about it. It's not pretty, but neither are many other things we've discussed and continue to discuss as a society, like when it's acceptable to kill another adult (in self-defense, in war, as capital punishment), etc.

I can imagine that, for myself, there could be situations in which I would rather spare my child the suffering of some affliction or other. I'm not talking about hang-nails here. I would hate to be locked into a situation in which doing what I think is right is considered unthinkable (and therefore likely highly illegal), simply because other people refuse to think about it.

Now with caps!

it's never to late in the game (or too early) to take a human life as long as those around it feel that it's an inconvenience.

I better look over my shoulder.  I feel pretty expendable.  

I don't think anyone is arguing that the decision should be made by the patient and/or family.  But right now, that is absolutely not the case.  Doctors will not even discuss the possibility of letting someone whose life expectancy is 3 months of pain and suffering or even less die.  "We have to do everything medically possible," or "we cannot assist in ending a life" is the refrain.  Letting doctors talk about the possibility that sometimes, it is best for the person and their family to end suffering seems to be the goal here.  And I think that is a very worthwhile goal.

Thalia