I did a little research on the book you quoted. This book was published in 1920 at the start of the Nazi theories being invented. Their reference to a life unworthy of being lived is an early theology of killing not understanding the life of what a vegetable has. It is a general call for destruction, not determining quality of life.
I still say the actions should be the responsibilities of the parents, not the government. The same thing was in the ACA, and I was voraciously against that. Obama even made a statement on preparation of hospice and the loss of life in a town hall meeting:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rin4h4cRs6Y
So, I do not agree with the government stepping in to decide, or have anything to say, about the life and death of a person, or further treatment available they can’t provide. It is up to the parents. So, if you give the child the treatment, which I have no problem with, and it doesn’t work, or it doesn’t repair the injuries to the child’s brain, what do you actually have. In my mind, a soul trapped in a dying body. I wouldn’t want to be that way.
rwood
Try looking at the book as something other than an instruction manual. Your greatest criticism should not be that the authors focused too much on your shared desire to eliminate those you consider undesirable, and not enough on the undesirable characteristics that cause you to view your fellow human beings as vegetables that should be eradicated. It should bother you to know that your own views are identical to theirs. Did it ever occur to you that maybe the Holocaust wasn’t such a good thing?
And the solution? "The Final Solution."