Letter: Medical guidelines
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Sir: Some of the examples given by the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health in its new guidelines give a very misleading impression of what constitutes "burden" in medical treatment. It is suggested that it would be legitimate not to institute life-saving treatment for a very low birthweight premature baby if that baby were likely to have a residual disability.
This suggests not that the treatment is inappropriate, but that a life with a disability is in some way not worth living. Such an example can only increase the fears of disabled people such as myself. The Royal College's guidelines are enshrining the idea that living with a disability is so awful that death is preferable, even when death could have been averted.
Letting children die who could be saved, solely because they will be disabled, is a form of discrimination against all people with disabilities.
Alison Davis
Blandford Forum, Dorset
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments