I can't think of a way to implement a law like that which wouldn't be fraught with horrible problems. Just imagine the misery associated with doctors deciding to "kill people's children," which in fact in some cases would be unjustified. (Nobody can always get it right, not even doctors.)
The first gives patients and families more options in how to deal with end of life care, the other takes options away.
Yes, it takes it out of the hands of the family and actually respects the patients final wishes, that they made for themselves while still lucid.
Of course (unfortunately) most people still don't take these steps to make their wishes known. But the original comment was about "laws preventing family members from prolonging the suffering of their loved ones," specifically about an example of a young child, whose wishes were not known (and of course not really relevant for a toddler). The fact is in the absence of any advanced directive I would much rather have the family make decisions about the type of care desired by the patient than the state.
A lot of small towns in Alberta only have Catholic hospitals (which are publicly funded, but run by Covenant Health [0], a Catholic institution). They refuse to provide, among other things, assisted suicide or abortion services despite being publicly funded. 4/9 of Edmonton's hospitals are run by Covenant Health.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covenant_Health_(Alberta)
In Australia, and I believe most places with well developed legal systems, you can get in quite a bit of trouble for mistreating an animal.
No so much if you mistreat someone under the auspice of medical or aged care.
Our culture has institutionalised the mistreatment of the terminally ill and frail-aged.
There are good arguments to be made that this should be seen as a problem that should be addressed.
And when he woke up he was utterly pissed because they cheated him out of an easy death. And as a devout Mormon he was done with this world.
My born in Greece high school history teacher said the Greeks didn't care how a man died. It's was how you lived that was important. I've tried to keep that in mind.
Existing child protection laws are for the most part perfectly satisfactory, if they're actually used. The courts routinely decide on whether a parent is fit to make decisions about their child, or whether a particular decision is in the best interests of that child. Many of these cases will individually present very difficult decisions, but the legal principles are relatively straightforward.
The impediment to actually using those laws is largely that of pro-life activism - few hospitals are willing to legally advocate on behalf of a suffering child because of the fear of becoming the centre of a media circus.
Compare that with England. The doctors propose a plan, and if the parents disagree with it the doctors go to court to get an order. The court has to look at the child's best interests and the paramountcy principle means that while everyone's (parents and childs) rights are looked at it's the rights of the child that take priority.
> associated with doctors deciding to "kill people's children,"
They can already do this in most of the US.
However, cases like the one I mentioned are fairly clear cut, in my opinion.