It depends on your definition of “ordinary care” vs. “extraordinary care,” something that can be difficult to define. You state that a tracheotomy is “not extra-ordinary,” on what do you base this?
You also open a wider question - where does the line lie for a family to decide on care that is considered medically futile? What about the rights of the medical worker to refuse to initiate care they feel is medically futile? (Yes, I am aware that in *this* case, there is disagreement about whether the care is futile or not. I am also aware that I have no clear answer for the question, and I am curious if you feel you do have a clear answer.)
Ordinary and extraordinary medical care has been pretty well defined. Of course there are debates, but trachotomies have NEVER been considered extraordinary care (the fact is that this is one of the oldest and most common surgical procedures in the world).
You also open a wider question - where does the line lie for a family to decide on care that is considered medically futile?
Many states have stripped this right from families.
What about the rights of the medical worker to refuse to initiate care they feel is medically futile?
I wouldn't consider that a right.
Baby Joseph's parents want to take him home, they realize that he is likely to die within a relatively short period of time, they are their parents and this is their RIGHT.
However, to do this, he needs a tracheotomy, this is a routine, simple and inexpensive procedure, but the hospital is refusing.