Baby Ashley

Baby Ashley died today of complications associated with her heart. You may recall that doctors made every effort to save her when she was born with her heart outside her body.

I took a lot of heat for mentioning how sad the whole story was and that biological "survival of the fittest" Darwinism was against her from the start. This provoked outrage. I must say that I was genuinely surprised by this reaction. It seems people thought I was in some way pleased about the termination of this little life. The fact that I mentioned how sad I found it ought to have removed any doubt as to my feelings about the matter.

The fact which was rather plainly missed (and my religious opponents ought to be pleased by this turn of events in my opinion) is that biology trumped science.

I have never believed that science has all the answers, and medical science has made incredible progress, but we don't know everything. We can't cure everything. A defect like a heart outside the body is a terrible affliction, and it is nobody's fault. Clearly a genetic defect though, Ashley wasn't destined for a normal or long life. Natural selection, in its simplest form is about the biologically and genetically strong surviving (I know I'm distilling this rather glibly, but this is the explanation which most people understand); and reproducing over many generations - and defective genetic material (or that which has become obsolete or less suited to function) being discarded.

I do not wish to rewrite the much more excellent works of Darwin or Dawkins, I only wish to apply them so that I might understand the unfortunate story of baby Ashley better.

This poor girl was not a survivor, and I can't be blamed for pointing it out. The more ruthless proponents of Social Darwinism would say that she should never have been helped in the first place. I would not count myself among these people.

I have only sympathy for her parents, knowing that any explanation is unlikely to make them feel any better.

G