It seems that negative attitudes toward people with disabilities have recently grown from the theoretical ideas of Peter Singer, of Princeton University, that it is acceptable to kill disabled infants, into the actual practice of allowing infants with disabilities to be euthanized. In any other time in history this was known as the crime of infanticide. It is now becoming viewed as "dying with dignity."

Last year the Netherlands, which has allowed euthanasia and assisted suicide for many years, approved the Groningen Protocol. The Groningen Protocol is a criteria that dutch physicians follow to allow them to euthanize infants with disabilities and not be prosecuted.

Many people were shocked that the Netherlands had not only accepted euthanasia for competent adults, but also infants with disabilities, who could not ask to be killed.

The judgement call on whether a child should live or die is solely based on the attitudes of the physician or parents toward the possible quality of life of the individual. These acts of infanticide have been justified by people who believe that it is acceptable to kill infants who are born with significant disabilities because their lives will either be filled with constant suffering or without human meaning.

The fact is that most of the infants that have been euthanized under the Groningen Protocol are children born with spina bifida, a condition that can be successfully treated, often resulting in a "normal" life for the person.

Just ask Darrell Thomas in London Ontario who was born 50 years ago in Winnipeg Manitoba with spina bifida. His mother was told that he would be severely disabled and yet Darrell has lived an active normal life.

Darrell recently said to me: "Thank God I was born in Canada 50 years ago and not the Netherlands today."

Not all children will live as active a life as Darrell, but who are we to judge who should live and who should die?

Last week the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists in Britain requested that they not only be permitted to allow natural death to occur by not providing life-sustaining medical treatment, but that they also be allowed to euthanasize infants born with disabilities.

There is a huge ethical difference between allowing natural death to occur by not providing extra-ordinary medical treatment, as compared to intentionally causing the death of an infant with disabilities. To withdraw or withhold medical treatment that may or may not provide benefit for a person is not euthanasia but rather accepting the limits of life.

We must reject the slide into the quality of life ethic that is promoted by the philosopher Peter Singer because this ethic dehumanizes people, granting them the status of personhood only when they have a certain level of utility or cognition. This philosophy represents the worst form of eugenics, an ethic that like Peter Singer, believes that we should eliminate the weak and the vulnerable for the sake of the "happiness" of society as a whole.

The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists needs to return to an ethic of caring for the most vulnerable. They must commit to not only protecting the lives of children with disabilities but also to provide basic medical care to all of their patients.

Once we determine who should live and who should die the only question remaining is who should live.