They called him Baby OT. The child was on a ventilator due to a rare metabolic disorder, brain damage and respiratory failure. The parents wanted to keep him alive. The doctors said no. They went to court and the doctors won.

The parents appealed against the London's high court ruling but two Court of Appeal judges refused "the couple permission to challenge the decision by Mrs. Justice Parker made after a 10-day hearing."

What bothered me the most was not the court's decision (though that was tragic) but the following statement made by the British Medical Association's spokeswoman: 

Cases like this are very distressing and we have every empathy with the parents, but when the parents and the clinical team don't agree on the treatment for the child in question, the only way forward is to go to the courts and for the courts to decide on what is in the best interests of the child, which is paramount.

This statement is way more than a simple commentary on the issue. It represents a deep-rooted belief about the role of parents and government in the life of a child. It represents a view of family and how it should function.

Burn off the fluff and here is what you get: When the clinical team and parents disagree, "the only way forward is to go to the courts and for the courts to decide on what is in the best interests of the child." Did you hear that? The only way forward. All other options are digressive and backwards. The final decision rests in the gavel of the judge.

When did the responsibility for the well-being  of a child move from the parents to the courts? The door just cracked. Someone else will come along and kick it wide open. 

The article on BBC News also stated, "Doctors treating him had said the boy's life was intolerable and his disability was such that his life had little purpose." Another wide-sweeping, faith-based, value decision placed in the hands of a medical practitioner.

Where did the doctors get the authority to decide if a child's life has purpose or not? And what have the doctors really said? That human life has no intrinsic value, only practical value. He has decided that if a human being cannot live and function like a normal human being and (he would probably add) further the cause of progress of society, then his life is valueless. To be consistent, the doctor would also have to say that the people less educated and less intelligent than the average also have less value. And those in special olympics and those without BA’s and those on disability have “less purpose” and therefore could be quicker candidates for the chopping block than others.

We live in a fast-changing world, and the time is coming where Christians and their beliefs will suffer more and more as the cost for following Jesus begins to climb.

But this is a good thing. I'm convinced that in the next few decades we will begin to see how small the church—actual Christians—really is in number, but this increased heat against life, biblically-defined marriage, and a host of other issues will purify the church and again Christ will shine in the midst of devastating darkness.

It is at this moment that we must seize the opportunity to preach the foolishness of the cross to a dark world, in desperate need of salvation!