DY,
I only found it in dailymail and repeated in huffington post in both cases the story is extremly vague and self contradictory in terms of what exactly was said to the family. Did you see it elsewhere?
Nishtgedeygiy
This shouldnt be complicated He should call it what it is “coma” means one thing “brain dead” means another (regardless of whether you personally view it as “death.”
PBA was NOT making a halachic pronouncment, (please see his second comment on this thread) nor to the best of my knowledge is the family of the child. so discussion regarding the halachic definition of death is completly irrelevant as PBA pointed out. He is discussing the hospitals choices, and the choices they face are regarding a “brain dead” (whether you view her as alive/undead/dead/resurrected or whatever)
Your last paragraph proves you have absolutely no clue what “brain dead” means
Whats worse is you dont seem to know the aleoh bais of the subject at hand. You asked for a law, it was cited. Instead of a thank you you misconstrued (out of ignorance or malice) the discussion at hand. It isnt regarding whether the hospital “must remove someone from life support” (where on earth did you even get that bizzare notion) it is whether they may.
And according to the laws as currently written in every single state including California, this child is dead, there is no medical/legal reason to provide “life support” to a corpse.
(Again as to whether there is halachic reason to provide life support to what is legally/medically defined as a cadaver, is a great discussion but one for another day (or another thread)as it isn’t relevant to the discussion at hand which is limited to the options facing the child’s family and the hospital outlined in the OP neither of whom are invoking halacha)