The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists has angered disability rights campaigners by suggesting that it is sometimes wrong to initiate intensive neonatal care in very premature or seriously ill babies.
The college urged the Nuffield Council on Bioethics, which has been looking at the issue for the past two years and is due to publish its report later this month, to "think more radically about non-resuscitation, withdrawal of treatment decisions, the best-interests test and active euthanasia" in relation to the sickest newborn babies.
But organisations like the British Council of Disabled People insist it is "completely wrong" for medical professionals - or anyone else for that matter - to determine whether someone else's quality of life will be good enough.
The moral dilemmas that surround cases like these were illustrated recently by the case of Charlotte Wyatt.
Charlotte was born three months prematurely, and has spent most of her three years in hospital. Her parents, who fought in the courts for their daughter to receive artificial ventilation if her condition worsened, took her home briefly but have now separated and are unable to cope. Charlotte is back in hospital waiting for a suitable foster carer. She has serious brain, lung and kidney damage.
The Royal College stresses the importance of not overlooking the "immense emotional and social cost to mothers and families" of bringing up a very damaged baby, often with inadequate help.
If Charlotte's case has taught us anything, surely it is that we need to debate this whole issue openly and properly. Let's hope the Nuffield Council on Bioethic's report, due out on November 16, will provide us with the platform to do exactly that.