There's only one thing more shocking that the comment by the 'bio-ethicist' Professor John Harris that infanticide can be justifiable, and that is the fact that he is a prominent and respected member of those great and good gatherings that decide on the ethics of medical practice. Professor Harris can always be relied upon to arrive at a position which denies the intrinsic value of human life. His latest views, however, stomach-turning, are therefore not surprising, although the muddle and illogicality of his argument may shock some who might reasonably assume a person in his position to be capable of principled and clear thinking. He said:

'I don't think infanticide is always unjustifiable. I don't think it is plausible to think that there is any moral change that occurs during the journey down the birth canal...People who think there is a difference between infanticide and late abortion have to ask the question: what has happened to the foetus in the time it takes to pass down the birth canal and into the world which changes its moral status? I don't think anything has happened in that time.

'It is well-known that where a serious abnormality is not picked up - when you get a very seriously handicapped or indeed a very premature newborn which suffers brain damage - that what effectively happens is that steps are taken not to sustain it on life-support.There is a very widespread and accepted practice of infanticide in most countries. We ought to be much more upfront about the ethics of all of this and ask ourselves the serious question: what do we really think is different between newborns and late foetuses? There is no obvious reason why one should think differently, from an ethical point of view, about a foetus when it's outside the womb rather than when it's inside the womb.'

The first point is that there not only a difference in moral and legal status between a foetus in utero and a newborn baby, but between an unborn child at different stages of its development. The law on abortion rests on the premise that we afford different treatment to an unborn child which is capable of surviving outside the womb and a foetus which is not. It sets that dividing line at 28 weeks' gestation, and while there is legitimate argument to be had over whether that limit is too late -- and there are indeed many reasonable objections to such late abortions -- the law holds that an abortion is permissible before that date and not afterwards. To say there is no difference in status between a foetus before or after it has passed down the birth canal is to ignore the crucial fact that before the abortion limit is reached, a foetus is very unlikely to emerge from the birth canal alive. And there is a very great difference between a dead foetus and a live baby.

As for not sustaining grossly handicapped babies on life support, this is only ethically justified -- and is only supposed in law to happen -- if such a baby is unable to survive. In otber words, if it is born dying. There is a great difference between allowing a baby to die by not intervening to keep it alive, an intervention which would prolong its dying -- which is actually unethical -- and taking action with deliberate intent to kill a baby which would not otherwise die, which is murder.

Not the the first time, Professor Harris cannot see the difference between killing and allowing to die. It is a confusion which is rampant among both doctors and philosophers, as it accords with the prevailing ethic of our society which is utilitarian and consequentialist. That is to say, it leads many to take the view that all that matters is the end product; so if the end result is the death of a baby, it doesn't make any difference if it is killed or not. It thus removes personal responsibility from the issue and legitimises monumental selfishness and a total disregard of any duty towards others.

Widespread as it may be, it is nevertheless a way of thinking that is profoundly amoral, unethical and indeed barbaric. Professor Harris is a member of the British Medical Association's ethics committee and the Human Genetics Commission. With such a person at the heart of the medical-ethical establishment, it is hardly surprising that this country is aborting babies with cleft palates, that it starves and dehydrates comatose patients to death and is moving ever more inexorably towards openly legalising euthanasia. This is a society that no longer understands the value of life.

Posted by melanie at January 25, 2004