[Alberta's Child]

These are always difficult cases to judge, especially when financial considerations would tend to make a lot of this moot. What makes them so difficult is that they involve two contradictory impulses on the part of a person's family and others with a financial stake in the outcome of the medical care.

1. Preserve/protect human life whenever possible.

2. Avoid prolonging life "unnecessarily" (and this is always the difficult part) when a tremendous financial burden would be placed on others in a fruitless attempt to help a patient recover.

[SJackson]

What makes them so difficult is that they involve two contradictory impulses on the part of a person's family and others with a financial stake in the outcome of the medical care.

I think the question here is one of who makes that decision, the family based on their beliefs, or the state. The decision is clear to the Brodys, this is not prolonging life "unnecessarily", removing him from life support would be killing, not necessarily murder.

[DesertSapper]

My wife and I completed our living wills earlier this year. I do NOT want to ever become a financial and emotional burden and have made that clear - with all the legalese required.

My heart goes out to these parents. However, as painful as it would be, I will not prolong "non-life" for my children.