My point, really, is two fold. First, I was illustrating the difference between two perspectives. The first is that of a person facing the loss of what, to them, is beyond all other value, to include their own life. The second perspective is your own, that of someone able and willing to weigh the relative value of one life against social constructs and convention. I think people generally align themselves with one perspective or another, and the great majority of Reddit armchair philosophers glibly align themselves with those who can weigh and spend the life of a child without a second thought. I fucking despise those people and nourish the sustaining hope that I can eat a good number of them when or if the shit hits the fan.

My second point is about the attempt to morally weigh the decision to attempt something like this. I think it's a little naive to easily condemn the father and his actions. If you can say without reservation that you could let your child be taken off life support and not be tempted to do some variation of what this guy did, you're either a psychopath or an idiot, and a poor parent in either case. If you're in that position, and you've even heard of one other person ever recovering, much less a full recovery, and you're not a totally shit parent, you'll be forever haunted by the choice to take him off life support. You'll ask yourself every day if your kid, who you know is so strong and so exceptional, might have been that lucky 1 in 1000, or even 1 in 10,000. Anyone who thinks it's a simple decision and you wouldn't consider doing something this crazy is a fucking moron.

This guy might have been an idiot, and made poor decisions, but the general case is an interesting scenario.