From: Falcon120 | #064
There was a similar question like this brought up in my philosophy class, only from a real life situation that actually happened.
There was this baby that was born without any nervous system or something like that, don't remember what it was exactly. I just know they had no brain function so could not think or even do anything and was going to die after 3 days or so regardless of what any doctors would do to try and help them survive, it was impossible. They were guaranteed to die.
In the same hospital, there were a few babies that would've been better off with some transplants that they could've gotten by killing that baby off earlier. Wouldn't have felt a thing either.
The parents were okay with doing this, but the hospital refused to allow it on the grounds that it would've been immoral, despite the fact that the baby would've died anyway. They were claiming some bull like God's will has a purpose for keeping this kid alive for these few days, he is still an innocent life that should be allowed to live, killing is wrong no matter what, and all this crap. Even though, again, the baby was going to die anyway and could've been used to save multiple other babies.
In the end, they didn't kill the baby, it died, and the others weren't saved.
If you ask me, the immoral decision in both this case and yours would be to NOT kill the baby.
... this sounds like an odd hospital.
--
There's always hope for better things in life. But you can't let anything, friend, lover, God himself, be your hope. You have to be your own hope.