Last edited by Hard Truth; 01-12-15 at 01:40 PM.
The other problem specific to this case is she had an opportunity to convince a judge she was making responsible decisions, and she failed. I guess skipping doctors' appointments, running away from home, and not having any plan of treating the cancer will tend to do that.....
Or to take if from another direction, it's clearly a case with important principles in opposition to one another, and a very difficult balancing act. There are CLEAR liberty issues at stake, and issues of parental rights, but I think we all also recognize that parents can't be immune from having their decisions nullified - say, a mother feeding pot brownies to a toddler, or cooking meth in the kitchen next to the baby's crib. The state has a clear interest in removing the child from that environment and protecting her from harm.
Here, the court weighed those important principles and decided to try to save the life of a minor, over her and her mother's objections. I understand those who think the court's ruling was overbroad, but the ruling has the advantage of being consistent with ALL the medical evidence that the decision is clearly in the best interests of the minor child. If she had a plan of treatment not involving chemo that had a reasonable chance of success, the court might have decided differently, and I might agree. But from what we know, and it's not all, her alternative treatment 'plan' is 'no poison' - that's it. So I suspect the judge lost very little sleep on this one, and rightly so IMO.
“I think if Thomas Jefferson were looking down, the author of the Bill of Rights, on what’s being proposed here, he’d agree with it. He would agree that the First Amendment cannot be absolute.” - Chuck Schumer (D). Yet, Madison and Mason wrote the Bill of Rights, according to Sheila Jackson Lee, 400 years ago. Yup, it's a fact.
I guess I'm not much moved by the fact she's an immature 17 years old versus 12 or 4. I understand your point, but we just disagree, which is fine.I don't think the court should have the option to rule in such a case as the girl will be 18 in months. I'm all for education about medications and treatments but the alternative here is she will get chemo or a few months and possibly - when she turns 18, decide to end it. What then? The court forces an age legal adult to finish the chemo? No. If a parent says no chemo and they are on board with it and the 17 year old girl also agrees with it - the state should not have the option to over rule. If the parent is irresponsible, why then are charges not being brought against the parent?