The 'baby Brown' case and the Dr Arthur verdict.

SIR There is cause for concern in the different outcomes of the trials in the cases of baby Brown's parents and Dr Leonard Arthur respectively. Mr Brown was found guilty of manslaughter and sentenced to five years imprisonment amid public opprobium for supposedly killing his 'mongol infant' (the euphemism is clumsy!), in drunken disappointment; whereas, Dr Arthur was acquitted amid almost universal plaudits having admittedly and dispassionately ordered doses of a medically unnecessary and potentially lethal sedative in order to make a no-feed regime tolerable to those responsible for the care of a similar baby also rejected by its parents. Does this mean that in future parents will reasonably expect their paediatricians to do away with unwanted handicapped babies on their behalf, when to do so themselves would put them in peril of the law and attract the disapproval of the mob bearing in mind that the same baby, when at an advanced state of fetal development, could legitimately have been aborted? I well remember a distinguished obstetric colleague saying to me when I thoughtlessly expressed myself in favour ofabortion on demand, on the grounds that babies need a facilitating environment after as well as before birth, retorting that he was in favour of infanticide on demand because in that case I, not he, would have to do it. The arguments about medical ethics in such situations do not sufficiently take into account the damage murder or infanticide, or abortion does to the 'executioner', however well intentioned he and his or her associates are. Does Professor Kennedy have an answer to this aspect of the problem? JOHN A DAVIS Professor of Paediatrics, University of Cambridge Clinical School, Department ofPaediatrics, Cambridge CB2 2QQ