- Joined
- Feb 12, 2006
- Messages
- 15,998
- Reaction score
- 3,962
- Location
- Tiamat's better half
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
I think the parent's and the child's choice is wrong, but NOT acting on something is not the same as ACTING to bring something about.
Don't we value personal freedom to determine the course of our lives? If one doesn't want to receive extraordinary medical treatment--what right does any legal body have in butting in and compelling a person to receive extraordinary care? The same people who will scream at the top of their lungs that a terminally ill person should be able to determine how and when he dies seem to be the ones raising holy hell that these people can't decide NOT to live. What IS that if not hypocrisy?
Comparisons have been made to not feeding a kid--nourishment is not extraordinary medical treatment. Being hooked up to poisonous chemicals in order kill off mutant cells--that is extraordinary.
Mind you--I totally disagree with the parents and the boy, but I side with their freedom to be wrong.
Hell you can go to jail if you have a dog chained up in your yard that obviously needs medical treatment. If your neighbors report that you've got a neglected horse on your property in dire need of a vet's treatment you can be fined and/or jailed for abusing the animal.
This is a child. A deluded child. His mother is also deluded. Due to their combined delusions the child is being neglected and abused. It is a life and death situation the courts should most definitely intervene even if it means throwing mom in jail for a bit and strapping the boy down for treatment. Just like the courts would lock you up for surveillance and treatment if you were deluded into believing you could fly and you were caught flapping your arms while perched on a building ledge. In life and death situations we have an obligation to aid the incompetent and see them through a time of crisis.
Last edited: