Whether they choose a ventilator or not is a health-care decision that depends on the situation. I think it's a perfectly reasonable step to take when someone needs one. On the other hand, sometimes it's not wanted. Personal, individual decision.
It might look intimidating to someone who isn't used to it, but then, so would computers, cars, and all the other technology we use in our daily lives, if we weren't so familiar with them. To someone with the actual disability, a ventilator can be as normal as an automobile. And nowadays, there are communication options even with total paralysis--for example, biofeedback based on brain waves, eye gaze tracking, etc.
You probably know all that, having worked in that area. I want to work as a rehabilitation engineer when I get my degree, so I'm rather interested in that sort of tech. The previous disability services director at my school used a ventilator and wheelchair... he seemed fine with it. I've read some studies on subjective quality of life in people with locked-in syndrome (total paralysis), and they report a surprisingly high level of life satisfaction.
But the choice about whether to use a ventilator or not in cases like that, is very different from choosing whether or not to murder a child. When deciding for or against a ventilator, you're trying to figure out whether the child will be happy lugging another machine around. But a murderer is deliberately ending any chance at happiness that a child could ever have.
Worse, at least according to the reporter who wrote the article, the focus seemed to have been on how expensive it was to adapt the house and how much of a hassle it was for the parents. They had plenty of money--they even had nannies for the kids! Personally, I think this is yet another case of a parent deciding that their children are defective and deciding to get rid of them.
I suspect that the "minor injuries" are likely from self harm.
Probably. I can pretend, though.
