Is it the parents or the states responsiblity for the child

Babies born at or before 22 weeks should not be resuscitated or given intensive care, a report says....However, research shows that many of these babies do not live very long, or go on to develop severe disability.
Earlier this month the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists said it wanted a discussion over whether "deliberate intervention" to cause death in severely disabled babies should be legalised.
But the report recommends the active ending of the life of newborn babies should not be allowed, no matter how serious their condition.

So the question Really about whois responsible for the child. In the 19th century there were private orphanage's to take care of the children that were not being taken care of by the parents and this was not viewed as the states role. In the 20th century he state took on this role and now we have the state as guardian of the child, this is OK accept now its saying that the state decides first and the parents are tertiary to the parents decisions. The state will always take into its decision economy and needs of the state and relegate the life of the person to a low priority. This is why they say

However, research shows that many of these babies do not live very
long, or go on to develop severe disability.

A rational person would say 1. isn't life worth it and who is to judge if one is worth living or not, if we are reduced to that that puts us in the same boat with the Nazi's who decided that millions of lives were not worth living 2. Some will grow to be perfectly "normal" is that not worth it.
With the advancement of technology comes a great responsabilty. It is far to easy to value one life over another when looking at a balance sheet, but children are not numbers