I do understand the "slippery slope" argument. But I also think that there are situations when inserting a feeding tube in a baby who is terminal is the wrong thing to do.
I think that God gave us the ability to discern which is right or wrong in these situations, and that we are not required to use any and all means necessary to prolong life.
The "slippery slope" can also go the other way. As medical advancements are made, more and more people's lives could be prolonged through artificial means. Is this why God gave us these techniques? And where do you draw the line?
I'm afraid that is something I'm not capable of doing, and I don't know anyone who can.
A case by case basis might work but if this is made into any sort of rule, it will be inflexible IE. 'zero tolerance' laws.
That is the point.
While there are a few occasions that I could agree with, making some sort of rule, law, understood agreement with the medical community is ,IMHO asking for euthanasia.
And,in this instance we are killing a child that has NO input into the decision.
I remember the Jack Kevorkian controversy. Many thought he was an 'angel' for assisting terminally ill patients to 'die with dignity'. Turns out several of his patients were merely depressed.
Who makes the call?