Maybe inconsistencies such as the ones perceived here are a product of an insoluble dilema.One born of the need to provide hard and fast rules when each case really needs to have it's own morality.
Take, for instance, a mother who knows that her unborn child will be handicapped beyond any hope.
The process for dealing with such things is not as clear cut as one would expect. Medically, there are conditions which may or not develop to such grievous capacities that a decision to terminate the pregnancy can be conscionably made at an early stage.
In these cases the decision is put off until it can be determined that the worse case scenario has developed. This can take the term of the pregnancy well over the accepted (and legal)limits of termination practices.
So, if a decision is made (by the parents, in most countries I think the onus is on the mother) to terminate, the baby is born and then, either, allowed to die or is euthanised. Hence, some baby 'euthanasia' cases are not what they seem AND it happens in every country.
This process means that a birth and death MUST (legally)be registered for the baby.
There are issues here that lie outside the bounds of most ethical systems.
Should the parents decide or the doctors?
Well, someone who is very close to me had this decision to make. A major dilema for her since she believes (religious conviction) that abortion and euthenasia are wrong. So, she decided to terminate, a decision which she believes is morally and spirituality, unforgiveable but KNOWS was the only intelligent course of action under the circumstances (her child had developed deformation in all four limbs and had a very high chance of severe brain damage as well).
She has to live every day with that decision.
How moral is a system which DOES NOT have the sensitivity to take that dilema away? A system which refuses the intervention of a qualified, third party?
A dichotomy, yes?
Should such cases actually be termed 'euthanasia' at all?
It's easy to point the finger and say "such or such a country is passing laws which allow babies to be killed" and allow yourself the luxury of the moral high ground but the killing of legally born children (such as in the situation I mention) is practised in EVERY country.
It all depends on HOW the law defines euthanasia and what loopholes or 'blind eyes' the law will allow.
Is it better unregulated?
I would suggest that an unwritten law which is already in practice is far more open to abuse than one which is regulated.
This is why you find people like Shipman inexplicably being allowed to get away with murder. An 'exit' doctor gone bad (IMO), once you realise the extend to which he is abusing the 'blind eye' it's too late.
Personally, I would like to see the CIRCUMSTANCES and the criteria by which the Dutch courts deem a case appropriate before I offer any moral judgement.
