Judge rules boy's life support can be switched off despite parents' hope of miracle

Just because we can hook people up to machines and keep them 'alive' for years doesn't mean we should. The time comes when it's best for all to let God or nature or whatever explanation you want take its course.

I haven't said anything different. But people should be making their own decisions about these things, not the government. The idea that the government ("we") ought to dictate the terms of death to families is appalling.

And when the family decision is to keep the poor child hooked up to the machine regardless of what it does to him? Forcing doctors to keep him sedated for weeks or months or longer, and upping the medication as they go along so he isn't suffering, all in a forlorn hope that a miracle will occur and he will be suddenly cured? When should the voice of reason enter into the picture and say, "Enough" and let the poor child pass in dignity and peace? And who should be that voice? Those who know what he's going through or those who are prolonging the suffering?

If the parents are truly Christian then they shouldn't fear death, for they should know that their son is going to a better place where he won't suffer anymore. They shouldn't promote the end, but neither should they extend it for their own feeling's sake. Their son is gone. Let him go.

I’m really not sure what point you are trying to make. That there should be some sort of authority figure dictating health care decisions?

How about the doctors treating the boy? They would know if future efforts are futile. Let them make the decision.

This has nothing to do with the "worth" of anyone here.

Yes it is, and this is where your main logical inconsistency lies. Your previous posts #11 and #28 directly question whether the "costs (financial and others) of providing medical care in difficult (likely futile) cases" like this one are warranted. There can be no judgment about whether the such costs are justified unless there is a comparison made of the value to which they are intended.

If you read the details of the article, you'll see that this is not a simple case of someone who is being fed and hydrated with a feeding tube, or is using mechanical means to support some basic life functions.

The level of care or cost is irrelevant to the ethical side of this discussion. The side, incidentally, which you appear almost sociopathically unwilling to grasp.

The child is hooked up to machine that has taken over the function of his heart and lungs, which means this child would -- in all likelihood -- have already been declared clinically dead before this kind of technology existed.

So would any diabetic without insulin. The fact is the child isn't (or wasn't) clinically dead at the time of this ruling.

This is an intensive care treatment, which means (by definition) it is invasive, costly, and requires ongoing support of one or more organs.

Although your definition is decidedly non-medical, many other types of treatment are "invasive, costly, and require ongoing support". None of this is relevant to this discussion without considering the worth of the patient, unless you are somehow advocating rather unique general opposition to all intensive care.

The very nature of intensive care is that since it can often effectively be used indefinitely to keep someone alive

No, indefinitely is a stretch. In this case there was no allegation that the patient would live indefinitely longer with the medical care.

it is only supposed to be used in cases where there is a likelihood of patient recovery.

There we go. You couldn't help but stumble into the ethical side of the discussion despite your best efforts not to. Your phrase "supposed to be used" goes beyond anything revealed in the court decisions. Your phrase "likelihood of recovery" quantifies the issue, but only when one considers the values of the patient. For example, even if the likelihood of recovery is 100%, what good is this if the patient himself has no value?

And yes -- this means someone must make an objective determination about the likelihood of a patient's recovery.

Just one? And what about their biases? Also, if this merely becomes a question about the likelihood of recovery, are you saying that all recoveries are equal? Surely the value of the recovery of an 11 year old is greater than the value of a recovery of a 98 year old. Someone like you should at least acknowledge that.

Again -- this is not about the "value of a life."

Of course it is, and it is a rather sad revelation about the type of person you are that you keep denying that. Without attributing value to the patient, all medical care is wasted. It would simply be medical spending for the sake of medical spending. There simply would be no denominator in your cost/benefit analysis. Can't you see that?

It's about whether there is a legal or moral obligation to provide this kind of medical treatment

The use, by someone taking your position, of the words "legal and moral" in the same sentence is sadly ironic. Left up to people like you, there would be no legal obligation to provide medical care whatsoever.

which represents an expensive and limited "good" in cases like this ... indefinitely.

How can there be a "good" when you deny there is value? You contradict yourself.

While nobody likes to look at anything like this in financial terms, the reality is that financial constraints will often dictate courses of treatment in these cases.

And why is that? You are attempting to justify your means with your ends.

The doctors and medical staff aren't working for free, the hospital building wasn't constructed for free, the electric bills must be paid, and the life-saving equipment and drugs all cost money.

All medical care costs money. The question here is whether it should be denied for a potentially conscious 11 year old strictly on the word of the people who are paying for it. Again, your ramblings about cost without allowing for any consideration of the value of the patient comes across as quite sociopathic.

Any time you have a third party paying the medical bills, you've effectively surrendered a lot of authority to determine your preferred courses of treatment.

Not necessarily, it depends upon whom the authority was surrendered to. Your conclusion would only be the case where the medical authority is also the judicial authority.

And this holds true regardless of whether the third party is a government agency or a private insurance company.

Not so. I fully expect the insurance carrier to whom I pay my premiums to provide the life sustaining care my family may need. They have done so in the past and they will do so in the future as they are legally obligated to do. The difficulties encountered in this case in a country which nationalized it's healthcare are due more to the fact that the healthcare provider is also the legal authority which makes those decisions. We all have a vested in interest in keeping people like you from having that authority.