If a person is not legally capable (for whatever reason) of signing such a form themselves then I see no reason why their legal guardians could not do it for them, this IS their purpose under the law.
I didn't see specifically anywhere in the article that said that the guardians thought the boy should be killed because he is retarded. Maybe they are just the type of people (like me) who wouldn't want aggressive measures to be taken to save my life, especially if it was going to bankrupt my family to do so.
If a person is not legally capable (for whatever reason) of signing such a form themselves then I see no reason why their legal guardians could not do it for them, this IS their purpose under the law.
Really? You believe that a guardian is empowered to end someone's life WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT?
I didn't see specifically anywhere in the article that said that the guardians thought the boy should be killed because he is retarded.
No, they just wanted to leave him to die.
Maybe they are just the type of people (like me) who wouldn't want aggressive measures to be taken to save my life, especially if it was going to bankrupt my family to do so.
Antibiotics to treat pneumonia are not very expensive.
Nevertheless, you seem to be trying to make a case for allowing someone to die on the basis of cost when there is no indication that this was the guardian's motivation.