Does the Church of England support Infant Euthanasia or not?

The U.K. Daily Mail (and other outlets) has been receiving much attention for this story:

Outrage as Church backs calls for severely disabled babies to be killed at birth

The Church of England has broken with tradition dogma by calling for doctors to be allowed to let sick newborn babies die.

Christians have long argued that life should preserved at all costs - but a bishop representing the national church has now sparked controversy by arguing that there are occasions when it is compassionate to leave a severely disabled child to die.

And the Bishop of Southwark, Tom Butler, who is the vice chair of the Church of England's Mission and Public Affairs Council, has also argued that the high financial cost of keeping desperately ill babies alive should be a factor in life or death decisions.
The shock new policy from the church has caused outrage among the disabled.

But LifeSiteNews is on the job:

Church of England Does Not Support Infant Euthanasia

The Church of England's decision to support a policy of withholding or withdrawing medical treatment from very premature or disabled newborns was not a statement of support for infant euthanasia, pro-life leaders have clarified, after media reports, notably The Sunday Times- Britain, said the church was calling for legal euthanasia.

In a statement made to the Nuffield Council on Bioethics inquiry into treatment of premature babies, the Rt. Rev. Tom Butler, Bishop of Southwark and vice chair of public affairs of the Mission and Public Affairs Council, wrote, "[I]t may in some circumstances be right to choose to withhold or withdraw treatment, knowing it will possibly, probably, or even certainly result in death."

Although the church could not accept the argument that the life of any baby was not worth living, the submission stated, the church nonetheless felt there were "strong proportionate reasons" for "overriding the presupposition that life should be maintained" at all cost.

"There may be occasions where, for a Christian, compassion will override the 'rule' that life should inevitably be preserved."

Wesley J. Smith, U.S. lawyer and leading opponent to the international pro-euthanasia movement, said inaccurate media coverage of the church's statement implied the church was supporting euthanasia, when in fact "it appears that the Church has ratified the right to withdraw life-sustaining treatment in some circumstances, which is a different matter altogether."

Now, these are fine distinctions. And many of us are probably prone to automatically think the worst of the Anglican Church. However, in this situation, it appears that the media has greatly distorted and conflated matters. Take a breath, everyone, and save the shouting for when it's needed - because you know it will be.

Update: Not surprisingly there has been alot of comments made below about what the CofE thinks are "legitimate" circumstances for withdrawing life-sustaining treatment from newborns. I'd like to make a couple important clarifications:

1) The CofE did not call for severely disabled babies 'to be [actively] killed at birth.' The MSM was attempting to put the CofE and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists on the same side of this issue (since the RCOG did call for active euthanasia). The MSM was wrong.

2) The separate question of whether the CofE in fact supports a form of "euthanasia by omission" can now be addressed.

If you go to their website, the CofE has published a "Response to the Nuffield Council on Bioethics' consultation on the ethics of prolonging life in fetuses and the newborn" (by Bishop Tom Butler of Southwark) from which I quote the opening note:

• "The Church of England's submission to the Nuffield Inquiry is entirely in keeping with the Church's policy on treatment at the beginning and end of life (see Euthanasia and Suicide)
• The submission stated that fetuses and newborns should only have treatment withheld or withdrawn if treatment is futile.
• We believe firmly that every life is valued and loved by God equally."

The second bullet point seems to be in agreement with the Magisterium's teaching that extraordinary means of life support are not necessary (obligatory). Futile treatments may be legitimately withdrawn if they are truly futile.

I don't have any more time at present to read and comment on the entire statement released by the CofE (busy school day), and I'm not ruling out the possibility that the CofE uses ambiguous and hazy language elsewhere in the statement. However, if the second bullet point is observed, most cases of euthanasia by omission should be ruled out. At least, that's how I read it.

Update 2: Cardinals respond to the british euthanasia for disabled newborns debate

[Photo: UK Daily Mail]