Today, the High Court will begin a hearing into whether doctors have the right to allow a seriously ill baby to die, against his parent's wishes. Coming so soon after the court heard the case of Charlotte Wyatt, Arun Arora argues that the law is taking precedence over our belief in the sanctity of life.

THE recent judgement in the case of baby Charlotte Wyatt, where the High Court ruled that the desperately ill premature baby should not be revived if she stops breathing, caused much soul searching for parents everywhere.

It would take the hardest of hearts not to feel deeply for Charlotte's parents, who had agreed with Portsmouth Hospitals NHS trust for the case to be heard in open court in an attempt to aid public understanding of the issues involved.

The decision to let Charlotte die was greeted with dismay by those for whom the right to life is sacrosanct. Not only did Mr Justice Hedley's ruling effectively give legal sanction to a preventable death, they argued, it set a dangerous precedent which may be extended with each new case where hospitals seek to withdraw treatment and upholding their decision would result in the end of a life.

These critics were given short shrift by lawyers and rationalists, who argued that the case was decided on its own difficult facts and set no precedent for future decisions. Yet even these defenders may now be taken aback at the speed at which a new case has arisen seeking the court's approval to let another baby die.

Today, Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss will preside over a two day hearing in the High Court to decide if another seriously-ill baby should be allowed to die.

Alder Hey Children's Hospital in Liverpool has secured the hearing to approve its application to withdraw treatment from nine-month old Luke Winston-Jones, of Holyhead, North Wales, who was given only days to live after being diagnosed with the genetic disorder Edwards Syndrome soon after birth.

Yet unlike the case of Charlotte Wyatt, in this case the parents of baby Luke are outraged at the hospital's action.

LUKE'S mother Ruth Winston-Jones has appealed to the public to support the family in its attempts to ensure Luke is kept alive: "Luke is a beautiful little boy who has grown against all the odds. He's proved he's a fighter, how can they think of destroying a life and sending him to the grave? I just want to take him home".

Rebecca Burke, executive director of the Royal Liverpool Children's NHS Trust has responded by saying that the medical authorities "believe that it is in Luke's best interest to seek the court's direction on this important and complicated matter. We acknowledge how strongly Luke's family feels and that this is a most painful time for them".

How did we get here? How did we get to the point where the right to life, the chance for a baby to battle to survive, became the preserve of courts and hospital executives? If the decision in this case follows that of baby Charlotte, what will it mean for the next child born with a serious disability, special needs or genetic disorder?

Last month the bishops in the Church of England and Roman Catholic Church made a joint submission to the House of Lords Committee on the Assisted Dying for the Terminally Ill Bill. They opposed legislation designed to legalise euthanasia by giving protection to those who would comply with any process of "assisted dying".

In their submission, the bishops concluded: "To take this step would fundamentally undermine the basis of law and medicine and undermine the duty of the state to care for vulnerable people. It would risk a gradual erosion of values in which, over time, the cold calculation of costs of caring properly for the ill and the old would loom large. As a result many who are ill or dying would feel a burden to others. The right to die would become the duty to die."

Whilst the bishops' submission may have focused on those who are presumed to have reached adulthood, their words also provided a hard echo of resonance to those in maternity wards.

The "cold calculation of cost" in our ever pressed NHS, combined with the increasing willingness of hospitals to balance the value of a life against an unquantifiable "quality of life", leaves us in a moral and intellectual paralysis into which we invite courts to tread.

The bishops' response to this is unequivocal: "A positive choice has to be made by society in favour of protecting the interests of its vulnerable members, even if this means limiting the freedom of others to determine their end".

FOR many onlookers, it was the medical opinion of Charlotte Wyatt "in constant pain" which swung their sympathies from the parents to agreeing with the judge.

Yet suffering is rarely limited to the patient alone and is often shared by those who care for them. In the cases of infants, is it not the parents who suffer more at the loss of their child or seeing their child in pain? If so, and if suffering is the prerequisite for a mercy killing, then shouldn't these parents also be put out of their misery?

The absurdity of such moral relativism highlights the flaws and dangers that exist within the claims of hospitals and medical authorities to be looking after the "best interests" of babies such as Luke Winston-Jones, when this translates into seeking legal permission to withdraw treatment.

This Alice in Wonderland logic that equates death with a child's best interest is the inevitable consequence of a road which our society will travel if the High Court upholds the hospital's application this week.

Whether an ageing adult with a terminal illness or an infant child with a genetic disorder, the arguments for assisted death remain unconvincing to those of us who still hold the value of life to be paramount. In the words of Ruth Winston-Jones: "Please help me keep my little boy alive - he is doing it all on his own".

* Arun Arora was Director of Communications for the Bishop of Birmingham for four years and has also practiced as a solicitor. He is now training to be a priest in the Church of England at Cranmer Hall in Durham.