Our baby was on life support machines from the moment she was born and my husband and I were making split-second decisions with her doctors. We knew that we didn't want to prolong her agony if things didn't go as hoped, and we would have asked for any assistance possible to make it swift and painless. Dr. Munro acted in good faith - I don't see how it would have served any good to prolong the 'agony' of either child or the parents. Walk a mile in our shoes and then judge.

Vanessa, Leigh,

In conjunction with Doctors Individuals should be able to decide how prolonged either their own or their charges suffering is.

I am not frightened of dying but I am terrified of having to cope with pain the general Deterioration in wellbeing caused for instance by cancer and its treatment.

It is about time that this country allowed individuals to make that decision hence avoiding putting relatives or doctors into impossible situations which can in turn wreck their life.

Elizabeth Astill, Alvechurch, England

fcsanders

So basically what you're saying is that out of respect for an invisible enigma that evidently isn't there, we should let all such patients suffer. Maybe you should first look up "sadism" and see whether that's in fact the cornerstone for your morals which euthanasia would have such an impact. And I'm not sure, because the facts about the babies' case was very poorly summarised, but it seemed to me as if they would not have lived very long anyway.

While it seems questionable whether the babies in this case could not have somehow had a decent chance, that still doesn't stop my objections to anti-euthanasia folks carrying weight with regards to the bigger picture.

Dan, Hong Kong,

Virginia, Brisbane, Australia

So much for natural selection? If what we believed was true, we would feel obliged to follow the full gestation period, but no thanks to God, because we don't really feel the need to believe in him. You can also thank evolution for giving us huge brains and the ability to make weighty moral decisions eg. "this child will have a miserable, short life, lets kill it." FYI, if the foetuses were actually perfect in the first place why on earth would we think about aborting it? Please desist your unnecessary religious fervour before you make another glaring contradiction. Oh, Jesus? Seen him around lately?

ubilate Latte

"with torture attached"? So a few minutes of pain would be worse than a lifetime? Somehow that doesn't seeem to even out.

Dan, Hong Kong,

Surely this is simply putting them out of their misery and is humane. Remember the parents completely supported him.
A quick death with dignity is vastly better than a life of pain and suffering without having any basic functions. It is a miracle we can keep any people alive who want to be with certain conditions. Let us stop there.

Ben, York,

Henry Percy Wrong. For me, a "good death" would be a bullet to the heart. A better death would be one in which aforementioned bullet would bring to an end the prospect of interminable and unbearable suffering for me. What about you? B. Theis Oh my god. Murder? Really? No way. You're not just kidding us? Call it what you like, you completely missed the point. Everyone knows we can call it murder. But is it ever justified? David, Newcastle Its not just an excuse, its a pretty good reason. Most utilitarians (I think?) believe removing negative factors in your life will cause greater satisfaction and happiness and than having equivalent positive ones, and yes I'm aware that its extremely hard to find that equivalent. However, personally I'd be happier removing something that's been troubling me for a long time than getting a new car. So, yes. I figure it would've been better if I'd never been born.

Dan, Hong Kong,

There is a fundamental insoluble issue concerning the survival of severly premature infants, especially those around 24 weeks gestation or less. The professional staff have full awareness of the severely damaged biology of many of these cases.Parents are naturally optimistic and necessarily totally unrealistic in their hopes for a good outcome. Much of the applied religious and ethical constraints are rooted in the distant non technical medievel and gothic value systems of societies from bygone ages.
Humane medical care with consent generally works well..Distant value judgements by detached third parties with no responsibity for continued care of tragically damaged lives
is usually vindictively unhelpful.
This man is a good doctor; its not possible to say the same about the complainant

dr jbzola, ascot, berks

when doctors start talking about a good death it opens up an ever increasing grey area that could lead to some very dangerous practices becoming the norm.

Your comment holds the key Mr Sloan. Though unfortunately you don't appear to have grasped it yourself. You say the doctor has overstepped the mark, as though it were a clear line between good and evil over which he deliberately stepped, and then you refer to the grey area which is being opened up. This poor doctor was operating in a vast grey area. A grey area populated by pain and suffering. He did not cause death, death was present and waiting, it did not need to be introduced. However, he did what he could, in that moment, to make an agonising situation less painful for the poor individuals who were experiencing it.
Did he hasten death? Who can say? Did he cause it? No.

CP, Aberdeen,

I do hope that sense will prevail and that that Dr Munro is recognised for making a tough decision in the best possible way. Remember, the decision that these babies should be left to die had been made - all he did was execute this decision in a way that was best for everyone. How can he possibly be punished for that!
In this case I think the nurses who "whistle blowed" should be ashamed of themselves. Let them (the nurses) conduct the process which Dr Munro had to work under and I can bet that would have run a mile!!
I also do not understand how long the GMC can continue this approach of "the doctor is guilty and we will go all out to prove so". The GMC are supposed to take an independant view of the circumstances and act accordingly. Doctors pay a subscription fee to the GMC to enable them to practice and serve patients, so the GMC's main aim should be to support their members not treat them as aliens.
PS Good article by the way - please forward a copy on to the GMC...

John Bag, London, UK

I agree with this article and with the doctor's and, by implication, parents', actions. The only moral thing in such circumstances, when it is a question, not of whether the child will die, but in how many hours or, possibly, days, is what will most ease its suffering and how good its inevitable death can be made.

angus, London, UK

"The babies began to struggle to breathe, a normal part of the dying process known as agonal gasping."
"Agonal" is not an obscure medical term, it is the adjective of the word "agony". This could have been written, "The babies were dying in agony". If I were watching my own child dying in agony - beating heart or not - I think I would be asking the doctor about the possibility of at least a better death, if not a good one.

Marcus M., Twickenham, UK

Hmm....

The babies were already dying - my reading of the case as reported here is that there is no dispute about the decision to withdraw treatment or that it wasn't an appropriate medical decision. The crux of the case appears to be that of admininstering the pancorium to speed up the process.

Mandy , Co.Durham, UK

When to prolong a life is nothing more than to prolong its excruciating suffering, and when we require such behaviour, then we are not a compassionate society - we are torturers. It's bizarre that some in this world will not accept this. If we allow this selfish lobby group to succeed, then it's only fair to advise all medical students that, on graduating, their names will be prefixed with "Doctor" and suffixed with "Mengele".

Oliver Cunningham, London,

Im with the doctor. This issue of a Beating Heart is most likey writen by someone who has never faced such a choice. Just because we can keep someone alive a little longer does not mean we should. My parents are both Baby Boomers and have told me I can pull the plug when its thier time. Niether want to be a burden on anyone and my sisters and I feel the same about our lives as well. I hope this doctor is cleared of this farse and can get back to doing what is best for his patients what ever that may be.

Heather Thomas, York, UK

This is not murder, it is life - life for the parents free from vegetables and life for the babies free from pain. I am so grateful to hear that there are doctors our there working to truly support families and not just maintain tissue as the "right to life without rights" advocates would have it. I desperately hope enought people speak out to both support this doctor, encourage others, AND change the GMS's view.

previously of the USA, Pinner, England, UK

The doctor absolutely did the right thing, and God bless him. It's a terrible break for these parents to be handed a child who's not going to make it. It would be even more terrible to make them sit there for an hour or two and watch their baby slowly die because the doctor is powerless to implement the only common-sense solution. I don't imagine this was easy for anyone involved, but it only would have been harder if they'd done anything else.

My sympathies are with these poor parents. I hope God sends them many healthy children in the future.

Steve, New York, USA

The right to life is for everyone, of any age. A doctor has a duty of care and the alleviation of suffering. If, in the administration of drugs to alleviate suffering, death occurs, it occurs painlessly and with dignity. The administration of morphine to any one who has breathing difficulties will increase those difficulties and cause horrible suffering as the person struggles for breath. To make matters worse Dr. Monro admits administering a drug to hasten the death he had already made likely by treatment withdrawal and the administration of morphine.

If doctors are condoned in this behaviour, are any of us safe - especially older people, disabled people and premature babies who are seen as a drain on the stretched resources of the state, on other people's lives and on our pursuit of happiness?

I agree that we have to discuss the issue of a good death, but it has to discussed in the context of each individual's right, without discrimination on any grounds, to life.

Hurst, Hullavington,

Thank you for pointing out the difference between prolonging life and prolonging death. Sadly many commenting here still seem unable to see the difference.

I have many reasons, both ethical and practical, to be against euthanasia. But this was not euthanasia, even if there is room for debate as to whether the method used by Dr Munro to ease suffering was the most appropriate. Even then, the hospice movement would be hamstrung if morphine was the only drug permitted it.

The gulf between euthanasia and easing suffering even at the risk of hastenning death may be a narrow one - so narrow that it is hard to see until you are close to it - but it is very deep. In this case, Dr Munro has gone close to the edge, but kept on the right side; sad that some, including colleagues, have tried to push him into the abyss, a relief that they have failed.

Dr Jon, Huddersfield, UK

I am a mother of five children, have given birth six times, lost the sixth child, but would always support the fact that if life should end then nature should be allowed to take over and the suffering patient (newborn or otherwise) should be given the privilege of dying with dignity. What is so often taken away by 'prolonging life' is the patient's right to enjoy a life of quality and an easy passing into the next sphere, realm, whatever you may like to call it.
There are herbs to hasten death, they were used by our ancestors for that purpose for many years, so why are we suddenly against this ethical passing away? Death is a perfectly natural process; are we too scared of it to allow it to happen?

A Howden, Bristol, UK

Good luck Dr Munro. Somebody has to stand up for common sense and take responsibility instead of hiding behind machines, drugs and PC to prolong suffering pointlessly.

Merv, Scarborough, uk

This doctor did the most humane thing possible. There are times when I think that we treat our loved pets and other animals with greater kindness that we do our our own. This doctor should be acquitted, indeed, he should never have been brought to "trial". Whilst my sympathies extend to the families who have suffered this loss, they also extend to Dr. Munro, who made a courageous decision, and now it seems, is to be penalised for it. Do rational intelligent people really think that pain and suffering has to be endured, that some noble purpose is thereby served?

Adrian, Donegal, Ireland

This is not murder, it is life - life for the parents free from vegetables and life for the babies free from pain. I am so grateful to hear that there are doctors our there working to truly support families and not just maintain tissue as the "right to life without rights" advocates would have it. I desperately hope enought people speak out to both support this doctor, encourage others, AND change the GMS's view.

previously of the USA, Pinner, England, UK

In this society the doctors responsible for killing an old man who had not been dying nor close to death, are not investigated by the GMC. That is in spite of absolute proof being furnished to the GMC, about his medical condition which did not include the oeosophageal cancer for which he was killed.

When the 'lunatics run the asylum' perhaps this is what we should expect. - or if these peope at the GMC are considered to be 'sane' then perhaps the 'lunatics' should be given the chance to run the asylum.

Ralph Winstanley, Moss, England

FACT: The babies were going to die.
FACT: During the death process, they were going to struggle to breath.
FACT: The parents didn't want to see the struggle (who would?)

The doctor only hastened the inevitable. Simply unplugging a machine is placing the life in God's hands (or Fate's, whatever your choice). The doctor made that process less painful for both the children and the parents. How is that murder?

Laura, New York City, NY

I support Dr Munro fully. To all you who think he's a murderer, I say shame on you, who criticize those who work with these suffering premies from the comfort of your armchairs. It is a travesty what we are doing to save these micro premie babies. We are facing a whole generation of severely brain damaged and physically incapacitated people. Sanctity of life? Please, spare me the religious dogma. I work with these babies every single day, and believe me, everyone would be better off if there were no intervention. Yes, including the infant. And to those handicapped people who are now outraged, save it. If you are able to read this, this is not about someone like you. These babies are waayy beyond handicapped. It's about time someone steps up and says "Enough!"

mary ann, houston, texas

Our 2nd child was born 3 months early. The doctors performed heroic work on several occaisions to save him. Today, he's a happy, well-adjusted, sophmore in college. While we never had to face the question of when to end treatment, other parents around us in the neonatal intensive care unit made those decisions every day. Once they decided to stop treatment, none of fhem wanted their children to suffer. We should let patients or their guardians make these decisions with the consultation of their physicians. And we should keep the government out of it.

doug finlay, san francisco, ca

I am a doctor and dead against hastening death. I beg to disagree strongly with what this 'specialist' has done as it goes against the solemn oath we doctors all profess at the start of our careers. Even if we did know everything there is to know about the body and about illnesses, we should never be allowed to reach such rash conclusions as "the patient is going to die anyway"! The sad truth is that we do NOT know all there is to know, therefore, we must err on the side of caution and give all patients, irrespective of age, social standing, race, creed etc. the fair chance to live. If I were such a patient, I'd certainly would expect that much from my carers. I shudder in horror at the mere thought that my carer could ever be a licensed murderer!

Dr. Mark Bugeja MD MMCFD, Pembroke, MALTA

One fact is true about it: when the death is certain, it's better to alleviate the pain. We aren't God to decide who must die so as to decide who must live in a cruel suffering!

EZEQUIAS DIAS HONORATO, JOAO PESSOA, BRASIL

Heidi has said below that it is "a life", yes it is but WHAT kind of life. We all have to be strong in making informed decisions in cases like this and I think the parents and the doctors did the correct thing. The article talks about a good death and I agree that the outcome was better than a slow, lingering and what would be an eventual death, or possibly in these cases a life as a vegetable if they had pursued survival in any form.
Sometimes the choice has to be the hard one, and not the easy one of keeping patients hooked up to machines when without them they would surely die.
This agonising happens in many ages, birth, accident, old age, etc, and I for one hope that if a choice has to be made for me when I cannot make it myself, that the good choice of a peaceful end would be chosen.
Had I to choose as these parents and doctors, then I would have done the same.

David Ainsworth, Glasgow, UK

It's easy for pro-life zealots to see things in black and white - "it's called... a life" - however most right-thinking people agree that the issue is more complicated than that simplistic picture.

If protecting life is so important, why allow competent patients to refuse treatment when that decision would likely result in death (e.g. a Jehova's witness refusing blood transfusion). In this, we give personal choice precedence over the 'sacred' nature of life, yet suicide is illegal - life here is more important than personal choice. Where should we draw that distinction?

The doses of morphine given as palliative care to those soon to die are certainly sufficient to hasten death if not directly cause it, but are given with the primary aim of reducing suffering, so are okay.

It seems now to be a question of litigation-dodging semantics, rather than considered ethics, so yes, we need a serious debate on when and how patients can be offered a death in the manner of their choosing.

Jon, London, UK

Society should not be obligated to bankrupt itself as technology advances allows the medical profession the potential to delay death for short periods of time at great cost.All of you who feel the doctor should have left no stone unturned to keep the babies alive should set aside your own funds for such lost causes. I see it is very easy claim the moral high ground if someone else has to bear the burden of your "morality".

JoMama, Baltimore, MD

Euthanasia, with proper controls, should be legalised. How about an opt-out scheme whereby pro-lifers and those of certain religious persuasions can choose to have a potentially drawn out, painful and distressing (including for their families) end to their life, whereas the rest of us can relax knowing that we (and our families) are facing a far more pleasant and humane end. And, in relation to children, who better than their parents to decide the most humane way to address their severe illness or disability - a dogmatic pro-lifer with no personal connection to the child? I think not.

Matthew, Singapore,

The article risks misleading non-expert readers by giving the impression that premature babies that cannot breathe are likely doomed: "...were unable to breathe independently. ... The babies began to struggle to breathe, a normal part of the dying process". The reality is that hundreds or thousands of premature babies are born every year that need help to breathe for some hours, days or weeks, and then go on to develop normally and live happy lives. My daughter was born at 28 weeks i.e. 12 weeks early. At birth she was given a 80% survival chance, and needed a ventilator for 24 hours. After a week in intensive care and a further eight weeks in hospital, she came home (i.e. weeks before she was due to be born).

More to the point, I really fear for babies who have a 1% survival chance when born; tight regulation of actions like Dr Munro's is crucial to avoid a doctor (they are also human!) misjudging the chances by believing that death is certain when there is still a hope.

Martin, London, UK

As the mother of a terminally ill baby, I can tell you that my first reaction was to be in denial that she was even ill.

The next reaction kicked in quickly - to desperately want to save her life.

But when the time comes and the horror dawns on you that your baby is dying, the next reaction is to want to stop the suffering and stop it NOW, for her to die peacefully in your arms. It's the last act of love that parents can make for their child.

I honestly believe that those of you who've never been in that position cannot possibly imagine how you would feel. I guess we were "lucky" that our daughter died very soon after the tubes were removed but, if she'd struggled on, who knows how we'd have felt? I haven't been there, I can't comment.

But Baby X and Baby Y's parents asked Dr Munro to help so who are we to question that they had the best interest of their children at heart?Like my daughter, these babies had suffered enough. And so had their parents.

Pauline, berkshire, UK

I wonder how many people who are so quick to say "murder" have stood and watched their own baby or child die in distress? What kind of sadist would not want to relieve the pain of an innocent on the point of death? How could anyone advocate unnecessary suffering of a baby or child who is entirely dependent on adults for its care?
I am relieved that the doctor was there & with the parent's consent and according to their wishes he was able to help those poor babies ease gently out of life. Thank goodness some doctors are brave enough to know what is the kindest and most caring option for their patient and family.

Fiona, London, UK

I have a 5 week old baby boy. If I knew he were going to die, I would not want him to suffer ten minutes longer than he needed to. And frankly, I wouldn't want to have to live through the hours of watching him suffer knowing there was only one outcome.

When my cat had incurable cancer, we could humanely put her down with drugs which killed her pretty much instantaneously and as far as I can tell completely painlessly and as peacefully as cat can be treated at a veterinary surgery. I just can't understand why we can't do the same for humans when doctors, caregivers and concious patients are all in agreement.

Laura, London,

Anytime someone ends a life medically when the person involved is not outright dying causes a moral descent.It is much better to easy all pain and let nature take its course instead of trying to play god.

fcsanders, La, Ca.

Everyone wants God's will when it comes to saving a life-providing all the expensive, sometimes painful and often futile care that our society has to offer. How come none of you detractors ever suggest that prolonging a hopeless situation is man's will, not God's will?

Susan, Highland Park, NJ, USA

I also support Dr Munro, the very idea that he may be chastised by the media and those disctinctly lacking any semblance of empathy for what the parents went through sickens me to my very stomach.

sam, sussex uk,

Morphine with the sole intention to alleviate suffering is one thing - pancuronium is quite another!!! Pancuronium per se DOES NOT ALLEVIATE SUFFERING or rather does so by directly killing. Remember - primum non nocere - first do no harm. I think the use of pancuronium in this way is shameful and should by no means be allowed to become an acceptable precedent.

Marilyn Casha, Qawra, Malta

I have a daughter about to finish her education and ready to set sail as a productive, enchanting citizen. She was born two decades ago at less than 6 months gestation and had a huge brain-bleed, at a time when technology was considerably less able to protect her life. There was ample time after the initial and very heroic efforts to save her for her to be allowed to die had she not been meant for this sorry world. I'm sure Dr. Munro would have found her chances and our distress quite compelling. No one can know with certainty what is ahead for any individual among these children; there are only "likelihoods" and probablilites. Most are carried off sooner or somewhat later by infections or heart rhythm issues. Artificial ventilation and tube feeding now are not heroic measures; repeated resuscitation probably is. Hastening death, except perhaps as a side effect of treatment or pain management, is murder, sometimes with torture attached.

Jubilate Latte, Atlanta, GA, USA

Occasionally, there is nothing we can do for the patient, and we can only treat the family's suffering. Shouldn't we at least try to comfort those left behind by not making them watch for days while a loved one slowly dies?

We have reached the stage where a person is forced to stay alive so they can be tortured by their condition. This largely stems from the idea that death is optional.

Worse still, this often ties up hospital resources which could be used to save someone who actually has a chance.

Explain to the relatives that their child died because someone else's brain dead child was forcibly kept alive for an extra few days to no good end.

John, Townsville, Australia

When your child's life is on the line you should never give up. A doctor's diagnosis is not the final word on whether your child will live or die. Choose life and always fight for it, especially where your children are concerned.

Harold K. Barnette, King George, USA / VA

Well all of us are going to die sooner or later anyway, is that an excuse to end it now?

David, Newcastle,

THE GOOD DOCTOR

Frances Follin, London, your statement below is the essence of simple truth!

The good doctor acted with appropriate care and compassion. Who can condemn him...or ask for anything more?

Garth Rex, Glendale Heights, USA

There are too many doctors hiding behind the pretence of compassionate euthanasia, like Shipman. No doctor has the right to play God, especially when relatives are given inadequate and false information. Real compassion yes, but that can only come from doctors, who are standing steadfast against euthanasia and will do all they can to save lives and make patients last days bearable. These doctors know there are some unacceptable mal practices going on in the name of kindness that’s why the debate goes on.

ANN, TAUNTON, U.K

What frustrates me the most, is that if I get to the point where I can no longer comprehend what is going on around me, or no longer recognize my loved ones then i would not want my life prolonged at unnecessary cost both financially and psychologically. I have seen people kept alive for years, dignified people who would have hated seeing themselves in such situations.

Everyone should have the right to choose what treatment they have. Just as a person should have the right to be kept alive if he or she chooses a person should have the right to be helped to go peacefully and painlessly.

For babies, the choice is naturally extremely difficult but I am sure the parents and the doctors would not have taken any decision lightly.

It is not right to put all the blame on the doctors, clear guidelines need to be established to help people in such difficult situations.

Al, New Delhi, India

pancuronium is not a "muscle relaxor", it is a paralytic. in other words, and not being familiar with these cases beyond this article. these babies were not eased into death by a medicine like morphine which would ease pain and decrease respirations, they were killed by the pancuronium. a normal, healthy adult given a heavy dose of pancuronium would die from paralysis of the diaphragms within three or four minutes. a normal, healthy adult given a therapeutic dose of morphine would experience a mild sense of euphoria and might have a slight decrease in respirations.

to me this is a significant difference.

john, atlanta, georgia

If it was a dog, people wouldnt blink to put it out of its misery.

But a baby, no, it must spend a week screaming in pain before it finaly dies.

Dominic, Manchester, UK

Apparently the babies were going to die anyway - so whats the problem? The real problem is in fact that the doctors authority has been undermined by less qualified nursing "staff" aided and abetted by no less than the GMC! The GMC needs to get real.

Grant , Scarsdale, New York, USA

The arguments against this form of merciful hastening a cruel death seem to be twofold:

The first is the blind and unreasonable clamour that clinging to life, even those futile agonal gasps which distressed the twins' parents here, is more important than anything else. This argument stands little analysis or examination.

The second is the 'today the stolen gymshoe, tomorrow the world' line - that if we let doctors shorten life under these exceptional circumstances then it follows that everybody over 55 will shortly be frogmarched into the gas chambers.

I canot help thinking that the people wed to either of these arguments are subordinating their compassion and mercy to their ideaology: precisely the characteristics which nurtured Nazism so successfully.

Roddy Campbell, Christchurch, New Zealand

Just a few points -
Firstly: "Most of us support some kind of compassionate euthanasia for terminally ill people who have made clear their wishes." - unfortunately, the polls in question were mostly commissioned by the VES, with leading questions, so we can't know for sure. Research has shown that people who might favour euthanasia tend to change their minds when the issue affects them.
Secondly: Attempts to make euthanasia legal in this country have been roundly defeated in Parliament by those who would be most affected by it - the disabled, the terminally ill, doctors and nurses. Those who treat the sick don't want death to be a treatment option. With all due sympathy to the parents of those babies, hard cases make bad law. The slippery slope argument has been proved right more often than it hasn't.
In this case, it was ethical to give a heavy dose of medication to treat the symptoms, even if that hastened the baby's death - But is that what Dr Munro was doing?

J.E Hamilton, London,

I once posted my view about merciful release based on my mother's death which was assisted and the subject of a subsequent complaint from medical personnel adding to my distress immensely. I received an opposing view from a Catholic couple, whose view I respected, but interestingly the wife was an intensive care nurse so I asked her if she had ever in the course of her work advised family members about the inevitablility of death on removal of medical support. Of course that is a regular part of her job - why then I wonder does she on religious grounds deny the right of the rest of us to face the inevitable and deal with a patient in agony in the most humane manner possible? (Howling is an appropriate way to describe how my mother suffered also) Medical staff are endangering their own professional careers daily whilst we do not face this issue - is it too complicated for our most sophisticated society to deal with?

Ann Mitchell, Newcastle, Australia

So much for natural selection!! When will evolutionist wake up to the reality of their belief. If evolution is true, then we wont be saving babies born at 24 weeks when God intended 40 weeks gestation and we wont be aborting perfect foetuses. Just shows you that humans decide that what is wrong be right and vice versa. We dont do what is normal like animals do, eg. raping babies, grown men having sex with very young boys, men having sex with men, women having "sex" with women!! and all the other unnatural despicable things that humans can think of. There is a force out there that opposes God and he will entice humans to do anything and everything that will bring misery, heartache, destruction, hatred, dissappointment, guilt, selfworthlessness, every evil thoughts, selfishness, and drive his victims to eventually commit suicide. When will humans realise that there is One who loves them and want the best for them not just here on earth but for all eternity. His Name is Jesus

Virginia, Brisbane, australia

"Most of us support some kind of compassionate euthanasia for terminally ill people" . . . sweeping statement without anything to back it up. Indicative of the whole article where the author presumes to speak for the "silent majority" with no authority.

Toby, London,

If "society" had it's way, then most Disabled people like me would have not had the chance of a life before death. Who are these medical people to judge what is quality of life?

Chris Page, Letchworth Garden City, UK

Intentionally ending the life of another is murder. Full stop.

B. Theis, London,

Yes, my dear, its called a beating heart. You know. ..A LIFE.

Heidi Barclay, Manchester, ma usa

When people start talking about a good death, they are invariably talking about other people's.

Henry Percy, London, UK

In my view he was entirely correct. I could outline a similar scenario but will not do so because it could cause prosecution for a dedicated doctor

david tulloch, Invercargill, NZ

Yes, my dear, its called a beating heart. You know. ..A LIFE.?

Heidi Barclay, Manchester, ma usa

Melanie: your timely article answers its own question. Undoubtedly modern Doctors envy the times when nature was allowed to take its natural cause. Obviously this Doctor felt that he was doing the most humane thing , within the bounds of his conscience.
Articles such as yours should help society increase its awareness of the risks their carers face in doing the right thing, and offer support to this Doctor.
He should be acquitted. Clearer guidelines should be offered the medical profession so that such humanitarian acts may not be withheld, for fear of prosecution.

WILFRED KNIGHT, orange county, usa /california

this doctor in my opinion has overstepped the mark,we must stop talking about debate, a doctors primary concern should always be to preserve life,when doctors start talking about a good death it opens up an ever increasing grey area that could lead to some very dangerous practices becoming the norm.

daniel sloan, motherwell, scotland

A good death - try telling that to our 11 year old daughter. Born at 24 weeks, she was the surviving triplet. One died at 2 days, the other at 6 weeks. You're aware of the odds from the moment they pop out and prepare for the worst - anything more is a bonus.

Our 6-weeker was kept alive by a ventilator working unfeasably fast after an episode. You could construe cranking up the machine that high as being questionable in the same way as administering a questionable drug, but in both cases, keeps the baby alive long enough for the parents to make the decision rather than die anyway. What's a doctor to do. If the parents understood (and after a few days you become an expert!) then they realised the outcome was inevitable and concur with the actions taken as being the last chance.

This GMC action puts its own people between a rock and hard place: do nothing or do too much?

Graeme, Leics,

Dr Munro appears to have done his utmost to prevent the ongoing suffering of both the babies and the parents. He is to be admired for taking this action, not pilloried. The sooner the Govenment legislates to accept a limited and accountable form of euthanisia in some clearly defined circumstances, the better for all.

Donna Walker, Effingham, Surrey

I wish him the best of luck and I hope if I ever have the need I find as good a doctor at the end.

Roger, London, UK

The way the Abortion Act of 1967, with its embedded safeguards, has been abused and turned into the wholesale holocaust it now is, new human life regarded as just a blob of jelly should act as a terrible warning. The authorities, including those responsible for setting out medical ethical guidelines, are not to be trusted to stick to the groundrules.An Act legalising euthanasia would similarly be abused and many, many people would be hustled to an early grave. It is all very sad, but that seems to be the way it is in practice.

Dr J.Findlater, Carnforth,

There is a big difference between doing nothing to save the life of someone whose death is inevitable (shortly, because all deaths are inevitable) and whose life will be dependable on machines and drugs and the adminstring of a lethal dose of drugs to end the life. Can anyone tell the difference between the two? Euthanesia advocates want to decide when to adminster the lethal injection to actually end one's life. 27 weeks used to be the cut off time when the foetus is viable (naturally without intervention and administring of drugs) But now, humans are trying to save a foetus born about 24 weeks which of course is debatable. Where would you draw the line? What sort of a quality of life will the child have and how long will they live? I appreciate that this is a very difficult subject especially when one is not the mother of the dying infant. Natural reaction would be to try and save the child but I think no one should be made to feel guilty if that is not done.

Virginia, Brisbane, australia

I support Dr Munro's actions - it is wrong to portray him as a murderer. He did what was necessary to ensure that the babies suffered as little as possible. We would all want that for ourselves.

Frances Follin, London,