The article is attempting to portray Mrs. Dunn and her son as victims so it is slanted in that respect. I'm almost surprised that they included the letter from the hospital to the mother because that destroys the mother's attempted martyrdom of her son.
The 2nd paragraph of the hospital letter (dated November 13):
"Eleven days from today, Chris's physicians are allowed to withdraw and withhold life-sustaining treatments and to establish a plan of care designed to promote his comfort and dignity. During this period, the physicians and others will assist you in trying to find a doctor and facility that are willing to provide the treatments that you request. A copy of Chris's medical record for the past 30 days at Houston Methodist Hospital is delivered to you at this time for your use in trying to find other providers."
Page 3 of the letter provides additional information including the fact that "If a transfer can be arranged, the patient will be responsible for the costs of the transfer."
So the mother can either hire a lawyer - most likely funded by some right-to-life group - and get lots of sympathy and free publicity, or she can go through all the hassle and expense to move her son. She's opted to go with the cheap route. After all, if she loses the lawsuit, she can always move her son then. While the article portrays the mother as being frustrated at trying to save her son's life, that's just totally misleading. She has the ability to save his life today.
Thanks.