I do not think your analogy holds, for three important reasons.
The first, is that death is inevitable, while kidnapping is not. The second, is that catastrophic brain damage is not an intentional act of cruelty, while kidnapping is.
But the third and most important difference, for purposes of my argument, is that a family anticipates getting a kidnap victim back more or less as they were when they were taken, while someone who has suffered brain damage is most likely not going to return to the same kind of life they had before. Instead, that person, if he or she recovers to any level of consciousness, is probably going to return to a life with no privacy, constant dependency on others, and perhaps lots (and lots) of pain.
Now, while I have no doubt that the argument over whether to maintain a patient on life support can damage a family, the amount and kind of ethical culpability that comes with making such a decision is of a different sort than the ethical burden that comes with deciding whether or not to pay a kidnap ransom. The illness was not caused by the willful and malignant action of another person; it is something that simply happens to people. And, it is highly doubtful that, short of miraculous recovery, paying an exorbitant sum is going to restore the loved one to a level of life such as she or he had before.
Re: Like paying a ransom.
The first, is that death is inevitable, while kidnapping is not. The second, is that catastrophic brain damage is not an intentional act of cruelty, while kidnapping is.
But the third and most important difference, for purposes of my argument, is that a family anticipates getting a kidnap victim back more or less as they were when they were taken, while someone who has suffered brain damage is most likely not going to return to the same kind of life they had before. Instead, that person, if he or she recovers to any level of consciousness, is probably going to return to a life with no privacy, constant dependency on others, and perhaps lots (and lots) of pain.
Now, while I have no doubt that the argument over whether to maintain a patient on life support can damage a family, the amount and kind of ethical culpability that comes with making such a decision is of a different sort than the ethical burden that comes with deciding whether or not to pay a kidnap ransom. The illness was not caused by the willful and malignant action of another person; it is something that simply happens to people. And, it is highly doubtful that, short of miraculous recovery, paying an exorbitant sum is going to restore the loved one to a level of life such as she or he had before.