Was just reading, in one of my forums, a link to an article about a Canadian hospital that has refused to do an operation on an infant who has been in a vegetative state almost since he was born. The reasoning behind the refusal is that it would not save the child's life, but only prolong it for a few months.

What confused me were the arguments from some who thought this surgery should be done. They're calling it a 'ruling by a death panel'. (Because it's happening under the Canadian universal health plan.) I really do not understand why anyone would want to prolong the life of an infant who is going to die any way. I mean, he will never become an adult, will never even attend school or become a 'contributing member' of society. Because of the nature of the the condition with which he suffers, even in a vegetative state, he must be in some pain. If his condition is going to kill him within months any way, why prolong his pain?

I remember having very similar arguments with my mother-in-law throughout the summer of 1998, when my husband was dying from cancer. She couldn't seem to understand the suffering he was experiencing - pain caused by the cancer, further pain from the 'treatments' he had gotten early on. She honestly couldn't seem to understand that none of the treatments available would save his life and would in fact do no more than prolong his pain. Just as the parents in this case (and those arguing in their behalf) cannot seem to understand that their CHILD is in pain.