The church stressed that it was not saying some lives were not worth living, but said there were "strong proportionate reasons" for "overriding the presupposition that life should be maintained".
WTF is a 'strong proportionate reason'? O_o
Doublespeak for on the wrong side of the cost-benefit ratio.
The cost-benefit ratio is all that the so-called medical ethics people are talking about these days.
I'm only making a guess at "strong proportionate reasons", but I would say that it's similar to "do not resusitate (sic)" orders, which aren't uncommon with adult patients who are terminally ill. Life may still be maintained, and it clearly depends on who is giving the "order" (patient, family); a newborn obviously cannot communicate on his/her own behalf, and the Church may simply be saying that life should not necessarily be preserved at all costs. It's not a matter of whether a life is worth living, but whether a physical life can be maintained without extreme measures. We have wonderful modern medical technology...is it always a blessing?