Quote:
Originally Posted by kane
This is right from the article: "Judge John Rodenberg said Daniel, who has a learning disability and cannot read, did not understand the risks and benefits of chemotherapy and didn?t believe he was ill."
So if the kid has a learning disability and is 100% at the mercy of his parents then he should just die because they believe God is going to heal him? To me that is paramount to child abuse.
When a kid turns 18 and is responsible for their own action and beliefs, if they want to choose to not have treatment because of religious beliefs, no problem. Hell even if the kids is maybe 16 or older they might be capable of making a choice for themselves. But until then it is the parent's job to protect their kid and if the kid has no idea what is happening the parents need to set aside their wacky beliefs and get the kid help and if they don't someone needs to step in on the kid's behalf. If they were beating the kid up or molesting him or starving him someone would step in and nobody would complain. This really isn't any different.
|
A parent can be pregnant and get an testing to find out a child is severely fucked up and decide to terminate it, no court will force her to give birth instead.
Reversed a parent can decide to bring in a child that will perhaps live 3 years in ungodly pain and know this in advance and not have a court order termination.
A parent can have their kid ran over by a car and give DNR orders even if it would save the kid, court will not step in.
Same parent can refuse for their kid to be placed on life support and allow nature to take its course even if it is medically obvious that the kid would more than likely recover if given time, court will not step in.
This list can go on and on, only difference is motive and it being a religious one.