Should a Child's Life be Sustained at all Costs?

Abstract

The principle that a child's life should be sustained at all costs is coming under attack for many different and compelling reasons. In this article I explore the main objections to sustaining life in the form of a dialogue. Each of the following three arguments will be addressed: i) that resources are limited and choices based on outcome should be made between patients and between treatments; ii) that a patient's life may not be worth living if its quality is very bad, and a patient's carer may also be being asked to make too great a sacrifice for the sake of the patient's life; iii) that if a patient is competent and wants to die, then he or she should be allowed to; likewise, in the case of a young child or baby, the wishes of the parents or guardians should be respected. I conclude, however, that these are not sufficient moral justifications for not seeking to sustain life. At the same time I acknowledge that the principle of always seeking to sustain life was not reached by means of rational consideration but was accepted from a standpoint of religious ethics, and I defend that standpoint.