Letter: Thomas Creedon: legal precedent, faith and quality of life

From Professor Martin Raff

Sir: Your editorial (2 August) concludes that we should feed Thomas Creedon. This conclusion must be based on the assumption that human life is somehow sacred, in the sense that even a human being with severe brain damage and disabling mental retardation is inherently more worthy than a dog or gorilla. Otherwise to be consistent, you would have to be against euthanasia in all animals, which I suspect you are not.

You have every right to hold this view of human life, but, given the current understanding of evolution, this view must be based on faith, not reason. Is it defensible that my child's fate should be determined by the faith of others? I think not.

Yours faithfully,

Martin Raff

Professor of Biology

University College, London

London, WC1

2 August