Letting Handicapped Babies Die

1. What was the Baby Doe case about and why did it cause so much controversy?

2. The state held that letting Baby Doe die was discriminatory against people with disabilities. What was its argument here?

3. The Department of Health and Human Relations issued a directive that said that infants were not to be denied treatment on the basis of a disability. This initial policy allowed for no exceptions. What was the reason for this?

4. When the directive was overturned by the court, it was revised to allow for ‘reasonable medical judgments’ to be made. In effect, physicians were allowed to cease treatment in certain cases of disabilities. What (according to the Department of Health and Human Relations) justified such a change in policy?

5. Why does Singer and Kuhse think that this change is inconsistent with the overall policy? What do they think is really going on?

6. Singer and Kuhse ask, “Could not the department defend its view by saying that whether a patient is dying is a medical judgment, based on the fact that a patient can survive only with the help of medical treatment?” (p. 123) What is their response to this defence?

7. The department maintains that even with the exceptions now allowed, doctors are not allowed to withhold “medically beneficial” treatment. S and H question this and claim that this policy does not make sense unless one is willing to let ‘quality of life’ decisions enter into the process. What is their argument for this?

8. Singer and Kuhse hold that if one maintains that there is an intrinsic value to life, then abortion must also be wrong. What is their argument here?

9. Finally Singer and Kuhse challenge the ‘intrinsic’ value view by demanding to know why animal life (particularly human) is more highly valued than plants (such as cabbages)? What is their point here and is it a good one?

Note: Review the first chapter of Elements of Moral Philosophy. Rachels has a fair amount to say on this issue which might help clear things up.