First off, my apologies. I didn't take the time to look what kind of site this was and merely registered because i thought discussing euthanasia was part of what you were trying to accomplish with your blog. My mistake. The difference between the situations that you and i are sketching is that you are talking about people who somehow get euthanasia forced onto them whereas i am talking about the choice of a person for euthanasia when all else has failed. The number of cases where the choice is made for a patient, because he or she couldn't, just isn't as high as you perceive and even then would never be made by the doctor or because there is money to be saved. I understand why my message seemed confusing but the first part of the message was a response to an earlier part of the discussion and wasn't related to euthanasia in the context you see it in.
To answer your question about babies: these aren't people missing an arm or deformed but patients with horrible, incurable conditions which in most cases leave them with a very short life expectancy. However i find myself having problems with this practice seeing the modern criteria for euthanasia in these cases practically tell people with certain conditions they are worth less than other members of society. This does not mean however, that i resent there being the possibility to end the suffering of babies with horrible conditions which will shorten their lifespan considerably, lower their quality of life tremendously and give them something one can hardly call a future. Euthanasia is justifiable but the modern day practice of it (e.g. in the netherlands) needs to adhere to stricter criteria.