I've read through a couple of the Kobra's comments and quotes and I think there are a few things to be said. I've looked through this thread a few times (but not nearly all of it) and if I say something that someone else has addressed, forgive me.

The first thing I noticed was this from the website linked by the OP...
"We are just trying to raise some money so they can be closer to their son"

Kobra, what is wrong with this? I get that you're sucking the utility argument **** all over this thread but riddle me this: regardless of the outcome of this child's complications/treatment, why would the parents being closer to their child be a bad thing? I think I saw before that you discouraged people sending money partially on the grounds of it not being able to take significant financial strain off of the parents but it would help them be closer to their child. The contributions made by these generous people would have an enormous impact on the parents no matter what happens so why isn't this considered in your analysis of the overall utility of the situation?

Full disclosure, I support euthanasia in the following cases for different reasons...
1. A person wishing their life to end and deciding that they would prefer to die rather than live.
2. A person leaving behind instructions on what to do if unable to make medical decisions on their own (say, while in a coma).
3. A person unable to give consent but has no chance of survival and will endure pain until death.

Each of these cases is complicated with its own reasons for or against, but ultimately I have been in favor of euthanasia after careful thought.

****I should probably make it completely clear that I DO NOT feel that this situation falls into any of the three cases.

The thing about you, Kobra, is you give me the impression of someone who has not yet thought of all of the consequences to the arguments that you're using here either purposely for shock value or because you just didn't think enough before coming to your conclusion on the matter.

For example, you use the utility argument that boils down to "society would have more money if they didn't keep the disabled alive". Let me just remind you that this would mean that researchers, doctors, or anyone who has made a career out of helping the disabled or sick would probably lose their job. Society would have no use to try and improve on current medical treatments for these people and medical science would basically slow to a halt. I know this is sort of a slippery slope argument but not really. My main point is that you're not thinking about what your black and white implications mean past the initial "I'm the Dr. House that everyone is afraid to be but not me, I'm bold" factor.

I will just skip the emotional utility counterargument as I'm sure everyone else on this thread has demonstrated it well enough.

Basically I just see you as a bully. People might be ganging up on you because it offends them but it doesn't offend me at all. Say whatever you want but don't hide behind the utility principle like a shield because it's a weak shield at best. I'm calling you out on it.

Please just remember that you don't have ethics on your side and that there's at least someone who sees through it as just a way for you to rebel against modern social norms. If you wish to continue a debate on the moral issues involved with euthanasia I'd be happy to start another thread but considering you've made your opinion known here the only thing you stand to gain from continuing to discourage people form donating money is the satisfaction that you're potentially keeping grieving parents away from their sick child.

Looking forward to hearing back from you, or better yet, not at all.

I don't believe in any god but I do hope that things work out for the affected parents. I can't imagine how hard this must be for them.