Sure - the distress of my taxes going up, because I have to pay for this (or I would if I lived in England).

Sorry - but cost is a legitimate concern in making health care decisions. If doctors don't think it makes sense to put someone on artificial life support, that's something that has to strongly be taken under consideration.

Wow, wow. Wow. Downtown Lad's statement is EXACTLY why, we should all oppose government intervention in health care.

But DL's just a right-wing nutjob.

Mark - Private healthcare is legal in England. If the partents want to keep their daugher alive on artificial life support, then they should pay for it.

But they don't want that. They want taxpayers to pick up the bill.

Again - please tell me why I should subsidize this?

So Downtown Lad, if the parents cannot pay for it then just let her die because of the cost?
I'm interested, what price do you put on life? I would give to save another persons child, that does not bother me at all, but it bothers you to do this with your money?
If your life was on the line and you had no way to pay to keep you alive (b/c there was a possible chance you would survive) then wouldnt you want some help from good people? Or more so if this was your child.
Im amazed at the selfishness here, I am happy to pay taxes knowing that my money would go to save someones life.
Im amazed at what money does to people.
BTW I say this with no disrespect to anyone with a differing opinion

Selfish? Sorry - this is pure common sense. Yes - it would be great to save every life, but eventually there has to be a certain cost where it is simply not worth it. Insurance companies do this every day. Auto companies do it as well - they will calculate how much money this should put into making cars safer. Eventually you reach the point where it costs less to be sued than it does to put money into R&D to make the cars safer.

This girl has been in the hospital since the day she was born and she is now two years old. Yet - she has the physical and mental functioning of a 3-month old girl. And what this case is about is whether or not doctors should have to revive her with ARTIFICIAL means if she stops breathing.

How much do we spend to keep her alive if she stops breathing? $1 million? $100 million? $1 billion?

Sorry - but if this girl stops breathing, there is absolutely no reason that the government should continue to subsidize this. They can save MANY more lives and help MANY more people if the money were spent elsewhere.

DL has a point in a way. If the parents were paying for the care the doctors would have unquestionly devoted the resources to keeping the child alive. The would have been free to go private at any time of course. In a system with limited resources, the doctors have to balance this with resources that would be taken away from, for instance people waiting life saving heart surgery. In reality, the courts saved the day. It is not an easy left - right issue, and one beyond making digs over. Out of curiousity, how would parents in the U.S. without health insurance have fared in the same situation. As I said, out of curiousity, this isn't a dig.

Sorry about the grammar and spelling, but I am just home from he pub.

Is there a distress more extreme than death?

For the family? It depends. It could be argued that, for some, watching a loved one waste away is far worse than simply allowing them to die in peace.

Of course, that just means that when it comes to that decision, it should be left up to the family and not to a medical bureaucracy, be it a government agency or the hospital itself.

"Is there a distress more extreme than death? Just wondering."

Yes, keeping an infant alive in excruciating pain. With all praise heaped on Life, we shouldn't forget that Mercy is precious too.

And bravo, Downtown Lad.

If people are so bent out of shape about this, then let them donate money to the parents instead of moralizing at the expense of the UK taxpayers and a doomed child that ought to be spared this terrible, artificially-prolonged agony she's in.

This child is not in excruciating pain, she has improved significantly. Even the judge saw that th is time, so what are you talking about? You are upset bc it could have been your taxpaying dollars that helped save her?
Being disabled gives her just as much right to life as you people, you write about her like she is some money stealing infant, it's all about the money in most of those comments and that is really sad.

Read the article. We are talking about what steps to take if the girl STOPS BREATHING. In other words, if she dies, should the state really try to revive her?

Talk to any doctor about this. I have a friend who's a doctor in a hosptial. He works in the emergency room. A very sick patient came in to the emergency room and his heart had stopped. My friend revived the person and brought him back to life. My friend, the doctor, soon found out that the patient had been a "do not revive" at the patient's request. My friend felt really bad. This guy was dying anyway and he was just extending his misery for a few more weeks.

This is NOT about euthenasia. It's about when to use artificial means to revive people who are dead.