A UK court has decided that the critically ill baby of parents who both suffer from learning disabilities can be denied life-saving treatment even though serious questions are being raised about whether the child’s parents fully understand what they supposedly agreed to allow.

The Daily Mail is reporting on the story of a baby known only as Jake who was born in July of 2014 to a mother and father who have IQ’s of 60 and 61. In September of 2014, Jake began suffering seizures and was admitted to the hospital where he remained until early December. Upon his release, he was placed in the custody of foster parents.

In March of 2015, one of the child’s foster parents found him unresponsive. He was once again admitted to the hospital where he was diagnosed with epileptic encephalopathy of infancy which is a genetic condition.

The Epilepsy Foundation describes epileptic encephalopathies as “severe brain disorders of early age” that lead to “relentless” cognitive, behavioral and neurological deficits” and “sometimes early death.”

The pediatric neurologist treating Jake, known only as Dr. W., said that following several examinations, Jake had made “little developmental progress” and that his life expectancy was expected to be “shortened”. As the child continued to deteriorate, he was unable to tolerate milk and required increasing medical support.

“Jake is both life limited and life threatened as a consequence of his underlying neurological condition,” the doctor said. “I would not expect him to survive early childhood, recognizing that some children do survive longer than we expect given the severity of their conditions. Death in the next few days or weeks or months would not be unexpected, whichever course of treatment is followed.”

Because his parents were deemed incapable of caring for him, the courts were left to decide what should be done.

According to the Mail, the court heard from Jake’s mother who said she believed “Jake is a fighter” and wants him to survive; however, she doesn’t want him to suffer or to be hooked up to the “breathing machine” [ventilator], placed on the “electric machine” to restart his heart should he stop breathing, or to receive CPR because this might hurt him.

She also said she wanted arrangements to be made so that she or the boy’s father could be with him in the hospital so that he was never alone.

President of the Family Division of the High Court Sir James Munby said: ‘If I may say so, it is a very illuminating illustration of how somebody who has [the mother’s] limitations nonetheless understands the fundamentals here. We all know what she means when she refers to ‘the breathing machine’ and ‘the electric machine’, and shows that she understands the fundamental issues and is able to express a very clear view about it, which is an entirely understandable and indeed appropriate view.”

After describing the situation as a “desperately sad case”, he ruled that because the parents “consented”, several medical interventions could be withheld in Jake’s case such as withholding bag and mask ventilation and to deny cardiac massage and resuscitation. Doctors were also permitted to withhold antibiotics in the case of infection.

The court allowed Jake to receive what pain medication might relieve his suffering or distress even though these medications could ultimately shorten his life.

Although it all sounds very logical and sensible, a look beneath the surface raises serious questions about just how much the parents really understood about the court’s decision and how it will impact their son’s life.

“With IQs that low, their ability to grasp that they were actually consenting to kill their baby would be limited,” writes Susan Michelle of LiveActionNews.com.

“The parents expressed love for their son, despite their inability to care for him, and IQs that low would lack capability for the mental connection and abstract thinking needed to understand that they are consenting to a death sentence. Only the father was allowed to have official input, because the mother’s IQ was one point lower than her husband’s— at the cut-off point— and she was not allowed to have a say in the process. But the court had no problem using bits and pieces of her words to issue its decision.”

Even though the judge did call for the parents to be “fully consulted” about all medical decisions, it was a hollow gesture because the mother isn’t even permitted to be involved in the case due to her low mental capacity and subsequent inability to grasp the implications of medical decisions.

As Michelle notes, the ruling includes all of the familiar sounds of compassion mixed with helplessness that because Jake was going to die anyway, the court might as well hasten things along so as not to prolong his suffering.

It’s all just another version of the typical pro-abortion talking points, Michelle explains.

“One of the greatest lies that the abortion industry tells women (and men) is that if they can’t care for a baby – especially one with some sort of disability – they should kill it. Abortion advocates don’t spend time discussing how even babies with special needs are wanted, even sought after, and worthy of life as much as a baby who had no obvious problems. And it’s this lie that makes some think it’s okay to euthanize a sick child.”

Unfortunately for little Jake and his parents, this lie is about to end in tragedy.

© All Rights Reserved, Living His Life Abundantly®/Women of Grace®  http://www.womenofgrace.com