I have to agree. Just because you can doesn't mean you should.
When my 96 year old grandmother was in the hospital with congestive heart failure doctors (students?) tried to do a mamogram because that was policy with female patients. My mother refused to give consent. They also wanted to remove a suspicious mole on her face that might have been melanoma. She was 96 and dying!! Where is the humanity in the caregivers? Would they have done that to their grandparents?
Making a 23 week infant suffer indescrible medical treatment to "practice" or to satisfy some ego trip is cruel. The outcome is almost NEVER good. Again, would they do that to their own child?
My now six year old son was a 23-24 weeker with a birth weight of 15.5 ozs. He is doing great with only minor complications. Are you saying my son should be dead instead of having just finished kindergarten and learniong to read, competing on a citywide swin team, playing t-ball, etc.?
I wholeheartedly agree. It's a complicated issue, but all medical decisions are made using risk and quality of life assessments - they always have been. If there is virtually no chance for a person's survival, allowing nature to run its course is the most humane thing to do, assuming the case that death is imminent and unnatural means of temporary sustenance would only cause intense suffering. No one should be forced to die in prolonged pain, whether you're 12 weeks old or 100 years old.
I don't support euthanasia; but I also don't see the point in using unnatural means to fight what God and nature obviously intended to make happen .