Somewhere upthread Shapley appears to have drawn an unwarranted and indefensible conclusion that the choice would only affect unwed mothers, and that the OB would somehow cooperate because this is an unwed mother, regardless of the infant's health. Boo hiss.
I don't know where you drew this conclusion from anything I've posted. My wife was not an unwed mother at the time of my stepson's birth. Nor did I suggest that the OB would always cooperate because of her marital status (I don't think I've brought marital status into the issue, but I could be mistaken). All I've said is that, without a codified set of rules as to when it is acceptable, there is no safeguard to prohibit the OB with going along with the mothers wishes. I don't know how you can infer from that anything resembling the above quote.
The law right now is that it is okay to not intervene if death is imminent, but that once intervention begins, it must be carried through. That is, in my opinion, as logical as it can be. One involves stepping in to stop the natural process of death, while the other involves not terminating a life that has been preserved, whether artificially or not. As I've said, the decision to prolong life is a weighty one, the decision to terminate it is even more so. I've nowhere suggested that easing a patient's sufferning through the use of painkillers should be prohibited. Killing a patient should be.
So a child that is not intervened with to save its life, may suffer its way to death, and that's ok within the bounds of his morality
You've no measure of the bounds of my morality. I'm talking legal issues here. I've always heard that you can't legislate morality.
I agree that doctors would require special training in the conditions deemed 'appropriate' for euthanasia. Govt oversite in taht case would be to define the conditions (via public discussion and vote), and then the OB's or pediatricians are certified, and the decision can be made on the spot.
And I have no problem with that, if that is the States determination of 'due process'. But, as I've argued from the start of this - the State has to make that determination via, as you say, public discussion and vote.
Are there 'state' institutions for such children, these days?
I don't know about California, but there are in Illinois. I'm sure California has them as well. Sometimes they just remain at the hospital. There are wards where such children live. Cardinal Glennon Children's Hospital in St. Louis has several children who were more or less being raised by the hospital. One child I recall was a real handful. He was known to all the regular patients and their families that spent time on that ward, because he visited with everyone. But his condition was not so severe as others.
My own observation is that children such as you describe do not survive as long in most such facilities, although Cardinal Glennon is clearly an exception. They usually do not receive the love and care that a mother can provide. My wife has argued and disputed physicians and nurses many times over their diagnoses of my stepson, and she rarely leaves his side when he is hospitalized (which, BTW, has become increasingly rare). There are times I'm sure that, had she not been there, he would have died under the care of the staff. Not because of negligence or lack of compassion, but because my wife has had to instruct them on how to respond, based on her experiences with him. One doctor at Cardinal Glennon told me that he has outlived their own experience with such children.