Quote:
Originally Posted by After Shock Media
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.
|
If a kid is placed on life support and the doctors think the kid would make a full recovery if given time they will often file to have the state step in. I have a friend who's wife is a nurse in a pediatric ICU and she sees cases from time to time where this happens. Of course it is not very common because most parents don't give up on their kids, but if the parents do and the doctors think they are making a mistake they can and sometimes do step in and ask the court to interject via DCFS.
Abortion is different. This is before the kids is born. The same with having a kid if there is a chance they won't live long even with medical help. The kid is gravely ill from day one and in many of those cases they get help for the kids, but it isn't enough.
This is a kid who, other than a learning disability, was/is a healthy 13 year old boy. His parents don't want him to get treated so they are going to let him die. His life is in his parents hands and they shouldn't be allowed to determine if he lives or dies based on their personal religious beliefs.
Let me ask you this: There was a case a little while back where a family let their young daughter die. She was sick and they said if God wanted her to live he would heal her. They prayed, she died. It turns out she had diabetes and it could have been very easily treatable. Nobody outside the family knew about it until it was too late so nobody could step in and help the kid. Should the parents be charged with the death of their kid? I say yes. With some basic medicine the kid would be alive today. Just because they are the parents of the child does not mean they should have explicit rights to decide if a child lives or dies when a reasonable solution is available. A parent should do whatever they can to help the kid. If simple medicine can help/cure the kid than that should be given to the kid. When the kid is old enough to decide for themselves if they want to continue the treatment then let them make the decision.