Survival of the fittest

Once I was arguing with a lady who said a human being born with a physical disadvantage so difficult to repair that that person would require lifelong support in order to conduct basic business necessary to carry out life should be allowed to die with dignity soon after such imparity is identified. She argued this is particularly relevant for families who have an economic disadvantage, in a way suggesting that if a human was born with sufficient resources, this harsh step might not be necessary. At that point I was shocked to hear this, particularly from a person for whom I had high regard. Just because one has the comfort of finances, they should be allowed to survive while the other is best put to sleep. How cruel can the society get. Months after I had this discussion, this point of hers popped in my mind whenever I saw or heard of a baby born with a physical or mental disability. Will the Doctors decide based on the parents financial status is what I used to wonder. Now with people setting up funding pages and being more aware and in turn charitable, availability of resources doesn’t always become a deciding factor. But how long can one depend on that. For that matter, how long will anybody’s resources last? Unless they are the Ambanis.

Reading about little Alfie’s case this morning made me think. Money or no money, living with an incurable physical/ mental condition can have a devastating effect on the person and people around him/ her. Euthanasia has been long discussed and its morality questioned by many. Is it easier to decide to decide when it is a baby? What Alfie’s parents must be going through now is beyond comprehension. May his soul rest in peace.