Of course. Which is why it ended up in the hands of the courts. The trouble is that, because something is emotive does not mean that the emotional argument is the right one.
The kid is going to die and nothing's going to stop that happening. The court has to decide whether him being kept alive because his parents cant bear to face just letting him die is simply causing him to suffer unnecessarily.
I think he's trying to say that you're so ideologically driven by heartless conservative values that your primary concern about the issue is that you're having to contribute financially to keeping the poor little vegetable alive. I'd imagine he probably also thinks you viscerally hate the boy's inescapably common parents.
You are correct. I am making no judgement and indulging no sanctimony. Merely invoking you a symbol of the put-upon taxpayer that we all are, where we are forced to indulge such whimsies as keeping vegetables alive.
Not only that, first game of next season bloody Gt Ormond Street chuggers will be rattling their tins round the pubs before the game expecting further contributions. That hospital actually diverts funds away from other, less glamourous childrens units.
I had that JM Barry in the back of the cab once.