Baby Charlie

I noticed a recent columnist for the Commonwealth-Journal going on about how much of a heathen nation that England is for its treatment of Baby Charlie. The English Medical System decided that there could be no benefit in continuing life support for this child who had been on life support for nearly 2 years and ordered the life support terminated. This has stirred up a hornet's nest of recriminations once again bringing up the topic of death panels and accusations that this is what liberals want for the United States. A British citizen remarked that the baby surely survived longer in Britain than he would have in the United States where he would have been cast aside if the parents did not have insurance, that the insurance would have been cut off far earlier. If Charlie's parents were not wealthy care would have been discontinued by default.

It strikes me as odd that some people will be willing to have our government pay millions to keep this baby on life support but will not favor life support for a child who has already been born and is healthy. Is death any less remorseful if it is by starvation and abuse than if it is by removing a non-sentient child from life support? How is it that we care about life if it has not seen the light of day but not if it has endured years of neglect and abuse?

Can someone explain this paradox to me?