I guess a "Darwinian" idea that babies who need an MRI to live are genetically inferior, and keeping them alive would weaken our species? Doesn't really make sense, but I don't know how else to interpret that comment.
Saving small lives that couldn't be saved other wise. When they have children, what are the odds for more trouble during pregnancy and more emotional pain.
This is historically a very dangerous idea on its own, but even ignoring that, please read the article, or even just the subtitle. This is about babies born prematurely, which often has nothing to do with genetics.
Comments
In what sense?
I guess a "Darwinian" idea that babies who need an MRI to live are genetically inferior, and keeping them alive would weaken our species? Doesn't really make sense, but I don't know how else to interpret that comment.
Saving small lives that couldn't be saved other wise. When they have children, what are the odds for more trouble during pregnancy and more emotional pain.
This is historically a very dangerous idea on its own, but even ignoring that, please read the article, or even just the subtitle. This is about babies born prematurely, which often has nothing to do with genetics.
Spoiler alert: you owe your own life directly to advances in medicine too.
The notion that only the "inferior" have a need of these advancements is imbecillic.
Why apply this only to newborns? Surely the argument translates to many other forms of treatment.
Finally, are you really prepared to stake a strong claim that reproductive success is a dominant metric of future worth?
When they have children, what are the odds for more trouble during pregnancy and more emotional pain.
Medical science moves at a pretty impressive pace, so whatever the odds are now it'll probably be considerably lower in 20 to 30 years time.