Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site cybvax0.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
From: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz)
Newsgroups: net.religion,net.politics,net.legal
Subject: Re: Vet kills his baby.
Message-ID: <361@cybvax0.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 18-Feb-85 15:09:07 EST
Article-I.D.: cybvax0.361
Posted: Mon Feb 18 15:09:07 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 20-Feb-85 20:16:33 EST
References: <319@cadre.ARPA>
Reply-To: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz)
Organization: Cybermation, Inc., Cambridge, MA
Lines: 26
Xref: linus net.religion:5216 net.politics:6947 net.legal:1016
Summary: 

In article <319@cadre.ARPA> geb@cadre.UUCP writes:
> How would you have voted if you were on the jury?
> (OK, OK, I know this isn't enough information to decide,
> but let's do it in the hypothetical, so we can discuss the
> issues).
> 
> I'll start by saying I would have voted to acquit.

Well, then it is apparent that you are voting on the basis of emotion rather
than informed decision.

I too feel the same way.  However, it may be possible to construct a good
argument for cause of temporary insanity if the vet indeed had a right to
deny heroic efforts or even if he thought he had the right.  Does anyone
know what legal rights anyone has to deny heroic measures to offspring or
oneself?

Personally, I feel that this is a good illustration of the benefit of
using a parental declaration (or a default period after birth) as the legal
fiction for the onset of humanity.  The purpose of this idea is to provide a
flexible legal rationale for abortion and dealing with deformed newborns.
A rejected newborn would be available for adoption, and if not adopted,
humanely destroyed.  Much as adoption at the ASPCA works.
-- 

Mike Huybensz		...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh