Was this in the best interests of the child, and who's going to pay for it?

Joseph Maraachli (a.k.a. “Baby Joseph”), age 13 months, suffers from a progressive neurologic disorder and is thought to be in a persistant vegetative state. He had been on a ventilator for months in a Canadian hospital. His sister Zina had the same condition 8 years ago. She was given a tracheostomy and sent home, where she died 6 months later. Baby Joseph’s parents wanted him to get a tracheostomy, too, and go home like his sister. However, in the intervening years, the standard of medical care changed, tracheostomies were not considered to be helpful, and the hospital declined to perform one. Despite numerous court cases and medical opinions stating that doing this medical procedure might be harmful to the baby, the parents refused to consent to removing him from the ventilator without the tracheostomy and letting him die peacefully.

There was an outcry from many clergy and citizens groups. Priests for Life was able to get Baby Joseph transferred to a Catholic hospital in the U.S., where apparently the tracheostomy will be performed on Friday.

Is an invasive procedure that will not extend quantity or quality of life really in the best interests of this baby? Are the parents thinking more of themselves or the baby when demanding the procedure? And finally, who is going to pay for it? I doubt the Maraachli’s have U.S. health insurance; will Medicaid or the hospital eat the costs?

I am troubled by this case, not the least because of the fact that I have seen so many other people suffer and die from lack of medical treatment and no pro-life groups protest for them.