The Church of England’s recent statement on neonatal care received some wild comments in the media which showed that it had not been carefully read. Admittedly it is not an easy document to understand but it is clearly affirming of the sanctity of life.

Neonatal medicine presents some of the most difficult ethical problems humans will ever face. The statement acknowledges this reality and wisely tries to lay down some principles. I have re-ordered these principles (given the original statement’s rather unusual ordering), and will discuss them from an orthodox Christian standpoint:

1. Life is God’s gift. The statement declares: “The primary principle from the Christian tradition is that all life is a gift from God, whether inside the womb or outside, whether disabled or not. Its appearance in the womb confers on the parents and all others concerned a profound and continuing duty of care.” There is a clear direction against seeing the goal of childbearing as producing a “perfect baby” and towards seeing it as the opportunity to “receive and nurture a divine gift.” Both pre-born and newborn babies are seen as “unique individuals under God,” and as such, their lives have inherent value.

2. We cannot but recognise that babies with many challenges are not the gift any of us look for but the witness of many who care for these children is that their child caused spiritual growth and come to be wonderingly cherished as truly God’s gift. The mentally disabled, as a particular example, rarely carry a grudge into tomorrow--how much we “normal folk” could learn from them!” Destroying those whom we deem to have lives “not worth living” is arrogant and foolish, which is not to say that such children do not break as well as make their families.

3. We are all going to die but that does not justify killing even on demand because one person’s right may so easily become another person’s duty. We do not live entirely to suit ourselves; autonomy is not the top virtue for us. Ultimately there really is only one prayer: “Thy will be done.” Perceiving that will is the point of prayer.

4. The art of medicine requires the wisdom to recognize when someone has entered upon their dying and are beyond recall by medicine; at this point anything except care is unethical because it is unnecessarily burdensome. Care, however, should be without limit. It is often during this stage that the dying give to the living opportunities for repentance, reconciliation and love that are amazingly redemptive for the circle of those influenced by their death.

5. Considerations of the cost of treatment are very dangerous and need to be divorced from any considerations of the care given to particular patients. Such decisions are necessary in the area of health care planning, especially in the poorer parts of our world, but they should not appear in the care of an individual patient.

6. Current thinking in bioethics is often very far from patient-centred.  Patients are predominantly rather unreflective Christians insofar as they have thought at all about death and suffering. But they are not materialistic, multicultural secularists, which appears to be the tacit assumption of many bio-ethicists. Autonomy does not loom as a major concern when one is about to meet one’s maker. There is a great and pressing need to see that medical students are taught how to handle end of life issues by people who actually share the beliefs of the patients.