Would you let a parent withhold insulin diabetic needles from a child when the child would die without them but live quite normally with them???
If the parents are acting irrationally, incompetently, and this endangers the child's welfare it is fine for the courts to step in.
Any hysteria you have over this affecting your rights is hogwash unless you plan to go off the deep end and act like a lunatic jeopardizing your child's welfare.
Some children DO need to be saved from their parents and this is a child we're talking about. A sick child.
Last edited by talloulou; 05-20-09 at 10:30 PM.
How do you defend allowing another child to be abused in order to feel your freedom is protected?
The examples I gave (that you conveniently ignored!) all had serious and obvious life threatening scenarios if not treated in ways that even YOU know will save a life. This cancer is well known and the medical community is very confident in their treatment for it. You're being intentionally obtuse here.Can you guarantee he undergoes the treatment he'll live? Or can you guarantee he'll die without treatment? you can't--no one can.
It's almost a certainty he will die without it. That should be good enough for any parent to make the right decision. If they don't, then that's why we have laws protecting defenseless children.
And an abortion is setting a soul free to play among the clouds of heaven, right? I mean, if I could explain the situation to that little fetus, I'm sure it would chose to take the path that is in the best interest of mom. Right? So, what's your big deal about abortion? A fetus knows as much about cancer as a 13 year old. Right?No one's condemning him to death.
You're fine with the idea of allowing this kid to die by giving his mother the right to decide. So, why isn't it ok to give another mother the same "right to choose"? If she's wrong... she's wrong. No big deal, right?
That sounds as intelligent and caring as Rocky'sIf he dies, he does so as he chose to live.
Ivan Drago, "If he dies... he dies."
A 13 year old child,He's not killing himself, and his parents aren't killing him. They are choosing not to act. one can refuse life saving medical treatment. See the article I linked to above.
...WITH a learning disability,
......cannot chose ANYTHING!!!
Thank You Barack Obama for Restoring Honor To The Presidency.
President Obama will rank as one of our greatest presidents!
I love this thread. A certain member proves she's perfectly fine with mothers letting their kids die because of their own religious beliefs but Jebus forbid those same mothers decided to have abortions thanks to their non-religious beliefs. This is on par with opposing a 9 year old girl who was raped getting an abortion.
I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality. - MLK
The deciding factor for me was the kind of alternative medicine the parent was seeking. There are actually a lot of holistic alternatives for cancer treatments that reside outside of the realm of Western medicine. In Chinese medicine, for example, there are a variety of treatments. Because it's a different system, the Western scientific establishment hasn't done its own research on it, but for the Chinese, some of these methods work.
If the mother was choosing a system that wasn't ionized water and shamanism, I might be inclined to agree that the courts have no business telling her what to do. It sounds like choice wasn't based on research, but rather a stubborn religious belief. She didn't do any research on the validity of ionized water... she just assumed that it would work because that's what her church told her.
I'm always wary of the government forcing parents to give their kids treatment, but in this case I think it's valid. It should always be on a case by case basis, and not a general rule, otherwise the government will have too much power to act.