Philosophical medical ethics. Conclusion: the Arthur case revisited.

Throughout his British Medical Journal series of 25 articles on medical ethics, Gillon frequently used the Arthur case (which involved a British physician who faced criminal charges for allowing a Down's syndrome newborn to die) to illustrate moral arguments concerning approaches to clinical dilemmas. He returns to the Arthur case in this essay on the obligations of physicians toward all patients with Down's syndrome. Gillon asks what implications one's view of the moral permissibility of allowing infants with this handicap to die has for the care of adults with the same condition. He concludes that the issue turns on the question of personhood, in particular that of newborns. If newborns are not accorded personhood status, then allowing those with severe handicaps to die may be justified but should not be considered morally different from actively killing them.