Just trying to clarify who you or anyone here is willing to assign the "right to life" to.
Although I am vociferously pro-life, from what I understand of this case (not much), it seems that the removal of the life-sustaining equipment and allowing the baby to die was the only humane alternative.
That does NOT mean that the child was an non-human inanimate object.
EuthanasiaTo my mind the relevant teaching here is that "discontinuing medical procedures that are burdensome, dangerous, extraordinary, or disproportionate to the expected outcome can be legitimate". As I understand it, this means that a brain-dead person who cannot breathe or pump his own blood is essentially "already dead", and that there is no sin in allowing the body to expire naturally. Contrast this sort of patient with the sort exemplified by Terry Sciavo, who is not brain-dead, merely incapable of movement: since her body is otherwise fully functional (i.e. her heart, lungs, digestive system, etc. all operate without machine assistance), she is obviously still a living human being, and it is murder to stop feeding her.2276 Those whose lives are diminished or weakened deserve special respect. Sick or handicapped persons should be helped to lead lives as normal as possible.
2277 Whatever its motives and means, direct euthanasia consists in putting an end to the lives of handicapped, sick, or dying persons. It is morally unacceptable.
Thus an act or omission which, of itself or by intention, causes death in order to eliminate suffering constitutes a murder gravely contrary to the dignity of the human person and to the respect due to the living God, his Creator. The error of judgment into which one can fall in good faith does not change the nature of this murderous act, which must always be forbidden and excluded.
2278 Discontinuing medical procedures that are burdensome, dangerous, extraordinary, or disproportionate to the expected outcome can be legitimate; it is the refusal of "over-zealous" treatment. Here one does not will to cause death; one's inability to impede it is merely accepted. The decisions should be made by the patient if he is competent and able or, if not, by those legally entitled to act for the patient, whose reasonable will and legitimate interests must always be respected.
2279 Even if death is thought imminent, the ordinary care owed to a sick person cannot be legitimately interrupted. The use of painkillers to alleviate the sufferings of the dying, even at the risk of shortening their days, can be morally in conformity with human dignity if death is not willed as either an end or a means, but only foreseen and tolerated as inevitable Palliative care is a special form of disinterested charity. As such it should be encouraged.
With this in mind, I'm fairly certain that removing the artificial ventilation from this poor child was not an act of murder. I could be wrong, however, and if so I request that those of you more knowledgeable please correct me on this.