myfoxdc.com/my...

To let Rabbis micro-manage Doctors is dangerous to both the individual patient and entire health-care system.

This community is trying to make some kind of political grand-stand with this maneuveur and they are probably hoping for a large cash settlement offer from the Hospital to go away.

They are asking for medical testing but when it comes to performing autoposies on their own victims of Shaken-Baby Syndrome, they want nothing to do with medical testing.

The idea behind giving money to Americans who pay no federal taxes is that they will then get on their feet and pay back into the system.

I make no attempt at hiding my distain for Hasidic and Ultra-Orthodox “Americans”. I think they will gladly take from the system but then will always find an ideological excuse not to pay back into it.

Which makes your selective umbrage at haredi “corner-cutting” all the more revealing.

Sorry folks – anyone who has followed the ethical/policy debate around end-of-life issues knows how stupid/dangerous it is to argue based on costs.

The point is that the treatment is futile, and no longer has medical merit.

That’s all that needs to be said.

And this case does not involve active medical euthanasia, it involves a decomposing body which belongs in the ground.

Forcing Medicaid to pay the Hospital less than what it costs it to keep the child there offends my rights as a taxpayer as much as using tax dollars to fund abortions offends pro-lifers.

In a society that is on the brink of bankruptcy, the cost to the many must outweigh the ideology of the few.

Whenever active medical euthanasia has been authorized, there inevitably are abuses of the system.

You obviously haven’t thought this issue out in your rush to make a snarky anti-Orthodox comment.

The hospital responded by asking a District of Columbia Superior Court judge for permission to discontinue treatment.

I’ve understood those lines as the family taking the hospital to court (asking for stopping brain examinations that would verify Motl’s state, thus maintaining the status quo) and the hospital responding in kind.

I do understand that the family’s got other kids to care for, still, the hospital’s annotation that the parents hadn’t visited Motl since July struck me as strange, no matter how many family members or neighbours are around. (And knowing how cautious hospitals over there are about public statements, particularly when there might be a breach of data or patient privacy guidelines, I’m willing to believe there must be something to the claim).

I hope it became clear enough that the family does have my sympathies and that I will refrain from weighing in when life-support should be stopped; I know the pros and cons on that issue from various perspectives, and all I can say is that I would never want to be in a situation where I have to take such a decision.