I couldn’t disagree more. A question of medicine, medical ethics, state use of authority, and the desires of a guardian vs. best-interest-of-the-ward debate is so plainly a socially important issue that to squelch the parties (as one-sided as the squealing actually is) would be completely antithetical to the concept of an open and free society. To me, you want the decision-making process in these kinds of things to be as open as possible (once the decision to make it a legal issue has been made) so there is a robust debate and opportunity for progress.
Yes, I realize that. I was telling my friends story in reaction to “how can this happen?” and the choices that need to be made - it isn’t always something that can be pinned directly on the doctors, and often there is a TON of parental second guessing. For the first two months of my friend’s baby’s life, they thought she might never breathe on her own and recommended taking her off life support - for two months after that they thought her liver might fail quickly. They chose not to and hoped for the best possible outcome. Relatively, they got a pretty good one, and watching that, I gain a little understanding for wanting to fight as long as possible.
And they actually got a pretty good one.
That they do, and to be honest I don’t begrudge them that. If it were my son I’d be doing the same thing. My son has been sick and in the children’s in Calgary (both the old and new one) and that was tough enough to see him in that bed in the ICU but he was nowhere as bad off as this one seems to be.
There are limits and though I wish them all the best if it comes to it I hope they let him go.