In the hospital after his injuries were diagnosed, we offered the opportunity to withdraw medical support as it was what we call “futile care”. Futile care is when a
person sustains such a substantial, devastating brain injury there is no hope for
meaningful recovery and a person (if old enough) or their family (if the patient
is a dependent) would not want to live with this injury, it would be ethically
defensible to remove support and allow the process to progress to deatha
process that is only being thwarted by extreme medical interventions. In this
case, Raiden’s father refused to consider this option.
In order to prepare for the rest of Raiden’s life given his injuries, he required a
tracheostomy because he cannot breathe on his own; a ventilator because
without it he could not breathe; a G-tube because he cannot swallow food; a
Nissen fundoplication, a medical procedure to tie off his stomach at the top to
prevent aspiration pneumonia; round the clock nursing care because if his trach
clogged, he would suffocate, and a list of over a dozen medications he requires
to control his seizures, digestion, pain, extreme hypertension and other medical
complications associated with his inflicted head injury.
Given the extent of his injuries, Raiden will never walk, talk, potty train, sit
independently or eat by mouth. His life will certainly not be of a normal
length - most children who sustain injuries like his will die in a matter of years
due to infection (pneumonia, urinary tract, sepsis) or as a complication of
seizures or high blood pressure.
It breaks my heart. Can they change the bond with him being out? (IDK the 'ins and outs' of this - that's why I'm asking). 
