[Frumious Bandersnatch]

In that case, the withholding of treatment to any medically ill person (even the automobile accident victim) is not euthanasia either.

To answer you question, though, no MD is required to do what they think is unethical. However, that question is a strawman, since the entire issue is not about ethics.

It is not surprising, as a conservative, that I take this position. Because naturally, I'm biased toward life. But I'm extremely irritated against the courts playing God.

What happens to the entire argument if, two years from now, a cure is found?

[mcg1969]

To answer you question, though, no MD is required to do what they think is unethical. However, that question is a strawman, since the entire issue is not about ethics.

What are you talking about? By the admission of this biased article, it's not about money. This child is being covered under state medical insurance which is not being cut off. And the hospital is even paying the woman's attorney's fees. So what else is it about?

Because naturally, I'm biased toward life. But I'm extremely irritated against the courts playing God.

You know, talk about straw men. If you're going to invoke the "playing God" argument, then we have to sit here and debate what medical treatments are "playing God" and which are not. But more importantly, it is not the courts playing God here at all. The hospital's medical staff, the ones with the expertise, made the decision. The court is simply respecting their expertise.

What happens to the entire argument if, two years from now, a cure is found?

Nothing whatsoever. This disorder then changes from a terminal one to a non-terminal one that should be treated. We have to work from the current state of the art in medical knowledge.

[unbalanced but fair]

"if, two years from now a cure is found?" Treatment and care have now saved the lives of people who have the same illness as my mother. Should we have kept her on life support for 19 years in the hope of a cure?