Order to Cut Life Support for Abused Baby Upheld

Wednesday's action by [California's] highest court could lead to a murder charge against the father if little Christopher Ibarra dies.

A juvenile court had previously ruled that life support be discontinued for Christopher, and the 4th District Court of Appeals upheld that decision in February. The appeals court concluded that Christopher was left in a persistent, vegetative state, neurologically devastated and was receiving no benefit from life support.

I happen to know the attorney for the father in this case, and as the news story indicates, he tried to argue that the state should not be in the business of deciding whether to end the life of an innocent and defenseless child. I see his point to some extent, but I'm not so sure that ordering life support to be terminated in this kind of a situation can be rightly characterized as an affirmative act of killing. It seems to be more in line with terminally ill patients who don't want to artificially prolong their life, and would rather allow what is afflicting them to run its natural course. In this case, the state is not responsible for this child's imminent death, but rather his dirt bag of a father.