Impaired Infants and Medical Futility - by Sarah Jarvis

I believe that the Owenses were wrong in deciding not to allow their baby girl to undergo life-saving surgery. I agree with Englehardt that parents should be the ones to decide whether or not to withhold treatment from an impaired newborn, the parents will be the ones taking the infant home and who will bear the cost and responsibility of raising the child. But I also agree with Weir that treatment should not be withheld unless the child lacks the neurological potential to reach personhood, or that prolonging the child's life would only prolong its suffering. Baby Owens did not meet either of these criteria. She had Down syndrome and therefore it was quite possible for her to lead a relatively normal, happy, productive life. Baby Owens was born in the mid 1970s and perhaps the prospect of DS children leading satisfying lives was dimmer then, but I believe that Robertson is right in saying that the decision to withhold treatment from an impaired infant should not be based on the social cost. And, as Englehardt wrote, if treatment is withheld "one must recognize that death is often not directly but only obliquely intended. That is, one often intends only to treat no further, not actually to have death follow, even though one knows death will follow." But I think the Owenses intent was for death to follow. They were not acting in the best interest of their child, but in their own. When the obstetrician told Dr. Owens that the whole family would grow to love the baby, she replied, "I know . . . And I don't want that to happen. I don't want us to center our lives around a defective child." Not wanting mentally retarded children is understandable, but the Owenses used their baby's duodena atresia as an easy way out. The Owenses let their baby die because they didn't want it, that was wrong.