Utilitarianism finds a Human Interest Story

Usually utilitarianism is thrown into the moral garbage bin by opponents. They cite arguments in favour of infanticide, those backing of medical experimentation, including vivisection, on humans in a persistant vegistative state and the lonesome stranger objection. Peter Singer has had death treats made against him. In the public eye, when the end is used to justify the ends, things just don't morally compute.

But there is another side to the coin. When a 22 month old baby lives with "no feelings other than continuing pain", we should be morally justified to step in and end her suffering. Charlotte Wyatt was born very premature, and her body has not developed properly. The Court of Appeal has decided that St Mary's Hospital staff are not required to resuscitate Charlotte if she stops breathing. Her parents argue that she should be kept alive. Charlotte, they say, can recognise them and is making cognitive progress. I fail to see how this gets past the critical issue, that her life is spent in agony.

Furthermore, I don't see the justice in waiting until she stops breathing before the Hospital may intervene. I don't see why "morality" forces us to continue her pain.

Edit Please read my apology to the Wyatts here: http://procrastinatehere.blogspot.com/2005/08/turning-point.html

From Reuters and Scotsman.com.