IT is a truism borne of wisdom to say that you should never judge another person unless you have walked a mile in their shoes. Unfortunately our legal system is not in a position to provide the judiciary with either the time or the ability to place themselves fully in the position of those upon whom they pass sentence.

Last week the mother of a child with both autism and Down Syndrome was given a non-custodial sentence for the murder of her son. The judge's decision to hand down a sentence of community service reflected the terrible situation in which the mother found herself: depressed to the point of suicide and feeling unable to provide the care her child needed. Rather than leave her child to fend for himself by committing suicide, the mother chose to take her child's life instead. In a situation of desperate helplessness, both mother and child became victims not just of their circumstances, but also of their actions.

I have a number of friends whose children are disabled. One child born with Downs is the apple of her father's eye, whilst my own godson, who recently celebrated his third birthday, is deaf with severe learning difficulties having been born 16 weeks premature. In both cases the parents shower their children with the deepest levels of care and would never see them as an intolerable burden, likely reflecting the feelings of the mother in the recent case when her own child was born. Tragically for both mother and child, the demands of a disabled child soon became the demands of a disabled adult and the daily grind of provision simply became too much. Yet as difficult as it is to ask this question, should our own inability to cope ever be a sufficient reason to take the life of another? At a time when parents are bringing cases against hospitals demanding care for their disabled children, should a parent ever have the right to take the life of their child, even if they think they are acting in that child's best interest?

For those who see life begin at the point of embryo or foetus, this question has been fundamental to the whole process of ante-natal screening which is now commonplace within our health system. Should a scan revealing the presence of Down syndrome, or sickle cell anaemia ever be a basis upon which to end what some would argue is already a viable life begun in the womb? Disabled campaigners pose another question, arguing that murder can never be the proper solution to finding oneself in a situation as desperate and heart-rending as the recent case and that the life of a disabled person should have the same value in the eyes of the law as any other life.

There are no easy answers to the issues raised by this case, but the difficulty of the questions that remain should not prevent us asking them and asking whether cases such as these, as tragic as they are, may be the start of a slippery slope which heads towards valuing those with disabilities as less equal than the rest of society.