For better or worse, I read the headline and hoped someone had made some progress that would make those dealing with ill babies, lives just a little easier.

If we vaccinate -> mutants with natural resistance have to compete with the susceptible.

Antibiotics -> People with strong immune systems and good hygiene have to compete with dirty weaklings.

Treatment of heart disease -> people with bad habits and bad genetics live longer, gather more resources for their descendants.

And on and on.

(Of course I'm being a little sarcastic above but I certainly don't mean to mock those that benefit greatly from medical intervention, I'm one of them)

The right thing to do isn't clear cut in this situation. Going to great lengths to save or prolong every baby's life isn't clearly a good thing, but neither is refusing care for premature babies.

I think many people, myself included, see an MRI as a fairly benign, despite the radiation damage. If we are considering this in Darwinian terms, then pretty much any medical procedure is weakening the species. Fertilization procedures are birthing children who will one day also need fertilization procedures.

But then, aren't we all genetically weak at this point? Don't we all need technology to survive? Take away the tech, and I think 99% of us die in a month. It's true we are getting weaker, but we are locked in. Civilization is now a race between our weakening bloodlines and our ability to compensate for it with technology.

The notion that only the "inferior" have a need of these advancements is imbecillic.

  "When they have children, what are the odds for more trouble during pregnancy and more emotional pain."

Why apply this only to newborns? Surely the argument translates to many other forms of treatment.

Finally, are you really prepared to stake a strong claim that reproductive success is a dominant metric of future worth?

Medical science moves at a pretty impressive pace, so whatever the odds are now it'll probably be considerably lower in 20 to 30 years time.