My older son was declared brain dead, after a massive cerebral hemorrhage, due to his low platelette count, due to his leukemia...
They made absolutely sure that he was brain dead, conducting a myriad of very specific tests geared specifically for this purpose...then and only then, did they approach us about disconnecting him from the ventilator....
And still, I have had people, who knew nothing at all about medicine, nor about my sons case or his care, actually tell me that I killed him...how gracious of them...
Yes, be vigilant at all times, when you or your loved ones are sick, in the hospital, or incapacitated...but spreading unwarranted fear, such as 'Run for you lives, the docs are out to carve you up for your organs', is quite a pathetic attempt to spread fear...be vigilant, absolutely, yes...spread unwarranted fear...absolutely not...there is a difference between these two tactics...
I don't think that all doctors are out to get you, but some are, and some are incompetent. All I ask for family members to do is get other opinions.
My mom saved my dad's life by disagreeing with the doctor and listening to her own common sense.
I avoided major surgery ten years ago by getting a 2nd and 3rd opinion, and even the original doctor (not a specialist in the field) later admitted that I was right.
Anyway, we both agree to be vigilant.
I would expect that in your son's case, he was examined and found to be hopeless by people who wanted him to recover. The worry of many people on this thread, and it seems to be quite warranted, is that some people are being declared hopeless by "doctors" who want them to be.
There are a lot of comatose or vegetative people alive today who may or may not ever get better. Such people would represent a very lucrative supply of organs if they could be slaughtered for harvest. Some people who call themselves doctors are all too willing to decide that a patient's organs would be put to better use in someone who would likely recover after a transplant, than remaining in their owner who may or may not ever recover; they don't care if their actions reduce their patient's chance of recovery from 10% to 0%--other matters are more important.
Another thing to consider: scientists continue to discover new ways of healing or curing patients from what had earlier been thought to be hopeless conditions. Consequently, it seems somewhat disingenuous to categorize a patient in stable condition as "hopeless". Even if there's no technology on the horizon to cure the patient, that doesn't mean such technology may not be developed in the patient's lifetime (if the patient is allowed to live that long).
Obviously, if a patient's condition isn't stable, such principles may not apply. If someone is suffering from terminal cancer and is only a few weeks from death, it's very unlikely that any cure would be developed and usable within that timeframe and so the patient's condition might be regarded as hopelessly incurable. On the other hand, a person who is comatose or vegetative but is otherwise stable may well be curable even if the technologies required for such cure haven't been invented yet.