There seems to be a total disconnect here. Rabbi Sol is conversing from the point of view of a community of faith, a group of individuals that derives strength from something they belive is beyond themselves, something that they recognize gives them identity and, to a degree that many cannot accept, reality.
Guest, and a couple of others, are arguing either from the concept of a disaffected, isolated individual or, more tragically, from the bottom line of a hospital's profit/loss sheet. The gulf is so broad that GG is completely unable to fathom the content of Rabbi Sol's argument.
The point is that this is a family trying to follow their convictions based on Jewish Torah law. The doctors, beyond all logic in my mind (except the aforementioned bottom line) are advocating a mercy killing - manslaughter in some jurisdictions. As I understand it (and I am not Jewish, but have had experience in a hospice and worked with a Rabbi with her patients) you should not do anything to artificially keep a person alive, BUT ONCE THAT STEP HAS BEEN TAKEN you cannot reverse the process without violating Jewish beliefs.
People, this is so very simple. It is a case of greed vs. faith. The doctors realize their retirement account is being affected by keeping this gentleman alive. The family, regardless of their feelings about a future recovery, is bound by their faith in a higher being than the CEO or CFO of the hospital. They do not want their spiritual wishes to be quashed by the avarice of some cold hearted medical "professionals."
How can these doctors be defended?? As I mentioned before, in some jurisdictions in the US their proposed actions could be perceived as manslaughter. Since when is it the duty of a physician to kill a patient? And their justification is the cost it takes to keep him alive? I thought the Canadian health care system was to be the model for our new US single payer system. Thanks for giving me a preview of what we can expect!
Once again, for people of faith everywhere, I pray this family wins.