Another way of looking at this in light of the current health care debate is whether the family has enough money to personally pay for artificially sustaining his life, or whether limited public resources/dollars, (in this public medical care system,) should be allocated to sustain his life over other potential uses of those dollars - such as fixing a lame child's leg. These are real hard choices that have to be made and become harder as resources diminish due to debt and higher personnel costs due to benefits. But shouldn't the public should have the right to decide where and how its public resources (taxes) are expended?
In the United States the current question could be whether private insurance should pay for it and whether everyone in that insurance pool should experience a 30% increase in their premiums to pay for it. In the US case, we generally do pay for it and do, as a consequence, experience the rate increases. The coverage and limitation depend on the contract (policy) and local state laws requiring certain benefits. But then the public wants no preexisting conditions, no limits on benefits, etc. and we complain when our premiums climb.(I paid medical claims for many years in my early days and premature infant costs were amongst the highest medical care claims.)
We just have to understand that every decision has a (unintended) consequence. Our system does not guarantee equal societal benefits to all, it ensures equal treatment under the law and the protection of our natural rights to life, liberty and property from government by the whole. Does a right to life include a right to demand public (or private insurance) resources to artificially sustain that life? Does a right to life include a right to demand shelter, food and medical care from the public at large? If so, is that a sustainable system? Can we afford that without bringing the economy down and elevating mediocrity.
“Does a right to life include a right to demand public (or private insurance) resources to artificially sustain that life?”
You MAY have a point if the child wasn’t improving. Sometimes being on a vent for a while is medical TREATMENT and not just artifical sustaining of life. A family in our church is going through this right now. Their baby would have died without the vent but with the vent he continued to improve until they were able to take him off completely.
If someone is basically dead and the machines are artifically sustaining life it is one thing. If the machines are needed until the body can heal it is quite another.