They said some babies were being kept alive for the "satisfaction of doctors" wanting to display their medical skills...

What a bunch of arrogant braggadocios those doctors, showing off how they can keep people alive in extraordinary circumstances, how dare they!

"The study, led by researchers at Nottingham University, showed that by the age of six only 20 per cent of surviving children had no disabilities - 22 per cent had severe disabilities, including cerebral palsy; while 34 per cent had milder problems such as a squint."

"Choice," of course, is only important when the mother chooses to get rid of the baby. Parents may not choose to save babies with cerebral palsy. Societal interests are at stake. Useless squinties must die so that the system of socialized medicine can gasp out another decade or two.

"because of parental pressure"

If the parents would just butt-out, the problem ceases to be a problem. Anyway I'm sure that not 1 in a 1000 of the voting public give a "hoot" as was mentioned in a post below.

Kevin:

Have a look at those figures...

20% + 22% + 34% = 76%

What happened to the other 24%?

And if we don't save them, we can't just throw them out, either. Must harvest anything useful from them first.

The article seemed to try pretty hard to avoid spelling out clearly just why the Baroness is so worked up about the issue. I think Kevin B got it right, though.

"The Nuffield Council is investigating the costs of raising the disabled children premature babies often become, and the costs of intensive care in neonatal units."

Moloch would approve.

Interesting thing I noticed the other day, which seems relevant: one of the hospitals (Kaiser Permanente?) is running an ad campaign on the Cleveland TV stations. The narration includes lines like "We never think that someone's time is up," and is very clearly intended to give the impression that they'll do all they can to keep you alive.

The MSM has repeatedly assured us that being kept alive is not necessarily good for you, that sometimes it's time to pull the feeding tube and snuff Terri for her own good, and so on, and anyone who holds to the contrary is an extremist. Howard Dean plans to make this an issue in '06 ("Keep Terri Schiavo Dead -- Vote Democratic?").

So what does this hospital know that they don't? Is this a leading cultural indicator, or an outlier?

MM:

What the hospital knows is that it isn't the Lord of life but its servant. Dean and MSM think they are masters to be served.

The offensiveness of suggesting that we not try to save these human beings because they will likely (but not always) be disabled is beyond words. I guess Baroness Warnock doesn't think disabled people could possibly have anything to contribute to society. Hell, why not just round 'em all up and put them out of their misery! Wait a minute, someone already tried that in the 1930s and now everybody hates him. Which is why it's more prudent and seemingly not-so horribly Nazi-like to go after the most defenseless among humans. Despicable.

There is something unseemly about taking advice on infanticide from someone named Baroness.

Her ladyship either had to "endure" growing up with a prematurely born, handicapped sibling and resents it, or, she is the mother of one and wishes she had had the freedom to abort him/her (for the child's well-being, of course).

Shelton: Baroness is her title, like countess or duchess.