When did a doctor become an Ethicist?

Baby MB, who cannot be named, has spinal muscular atrophy - a genetic condition which leads to almost total paralysis - and cannot breathe unaided.
His family are fighting a hospital's bid for permission to withdraw ventilation from the 17-month-old.
Doctors say it would be better to let him die as his life is "intolerable".
But the child's father told the court he did not think it was right for anyone to decide if the baby should live or die.
He said: "As a Muslim I believe that no one knows exactly when people will die.
"It was God who gave us life and God will take it whatever the situation, good condition, sad, or whatever your condition.
"You've got a certain time to die - that's what I believe."
Counsel for the hospital Huw Lloyd cross-examining said if it was not for modern technology and ventilator support his son would be dead.
….. She argued if he was given an operation which might allow him to breathe alone - a tracheotomy - his life would improve.
…And while he is not believed to be mentally impaired, he can only move his eyebrows. ……
Medics from the hospital caring for him have told the court they believe the invasive ventilation method they use to keep him alive caused him discomfort.
One unnamed doctor said he believed Baby MB had an "intolerable life", and that he was troubled by the life-sustaining treatment he had been obliged to give to the child for some time.

I find it amazing that a doctor who is trained to save lives is suggesting the killing of one. They might rationalize this on many accounts yet in the end it is a rational that is driving it, suggesting that the doctors can determine what is intolerable. Less than a hundred years ago this child would have died long ago, but it is possible that in less than 20 years from now it could be broken free from its body that is paralyzed, but if they kill the child they might never know. Ultimately in all circumstances like this it is the responsibility of the parents to care for the child, not the courts. There is clearly no child endangerment from the parent's side.
As always in cases like this one has to ask them one question, "is this driven by the trust to cut costs?" I wonder?