[Alberta's Child]

I don't see any indication in the article that anyone is actually paying for this child's care, which presumably means it is the taxpayers who are indirectly picking up the tab.

I hate to see cases like this, but this situation has one enormous difference from the Schiavo case in that Schiavo was capable of breathing on her own, where this child apparently is not.

[8mmMauser]

It is not enormous. Pulling feeding and water is similar. It kills by dehydration, not a fun way to go, and certainly not permitted for pets.

[robertpaulsen]

Plus, the taxpayers were not paying for Terri's care, so that element was removed from the decision making process.

In this case, the hospital is being asked to pay for the very expensive care of a patient they deem to be futile. Unless the mother can prove their prognosis wrong, or she comes up with the money, I see no reason why the hospital in this specific case should not prevail.