All these cases are different, and THIS case may be a horrible instance of malpractice, or even worse.
However, I do not believe that “life support” should be an entitlement, or something that a patient’s family is the last and final word on.
It’s a treatment and, like other treatments, should be given when it’s appropriate and not given when it isn’t.
How “noble” a sentiment.
This looks like a cat trying to bury its droppings. Not so fast.
“However, I do not believe that “life support” should be an entitlement, or something that a patient’s family is the last and final word on.”
Soooooooooooo you’d rather have a government death panel decide who gets “treatment” and who doesn’t? Gotcha.
You are aware that this is a conservative & pro-life forum?
The family in this case wants to transfer her away and arrange for her care elsewhere but the hospital is refusing to approve the transfer. How exactly are you misconstruing the family as exercising some kind of entitlement? Do you consider it an "entitlement" to be able to decide to take a loved one to a different medical provider? Even Obama himself wouldn't admit to that perverse definition.
It’s a treatment and, like other treatments, should be given when it’s appropriate and not given when it isn’t.
The conservative or Christian position would be that life sustaining treatment should be provided as an act of charity. The capitalist position is that treatment should be provided whenever anyone is willing to pay for it. The position you state above appealing to the subjective judgement of an outside authority is nothing less than communistic. Your callous views have sinister origins.