Case study

I've concluded that I don't really care enough to update my blog about the day to day happenings in my life, so I'm changing the focus a little bit with this post.

The other day I discussed the following case with a friend (yes, we're med nerds):

There is a 9 year old boy who is definitively brain dead. There is no chance of recovery. He requires a ventilator to breath, and in one month his body will completely shut down (his heart will stop beating). The parents are Orthodox Jews and believe (in accordance with their religion) that death is when the heart stops. They do not believe that brain death means that someone is dead.

The doctors want to remove the boy from the ventilator; the parents insist he be left on it until death (from their perspective) occurs. Who would you choose to side with if say you were on an ethics board?

Evaluate the scenario from two worlds, one in which there are finite resources and the boy is occupying room space in the hospital as well as using up a ventilator that might be needed elsewhere; the other where there are "infinite" resources, there is no burden to the hospital, doctors, medical staff, or other patients if the boy is left on the ventilator.

Additional details:
- Yes, the boy is completely brain dead, 0 chance of recovery
- The parents are willing to pay the money to keep the boy on the ventilator
- It's their only child

I'm interested to see what you all come up with...