Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: traviskicks
The government wasn't imposing what it believed to be the right treatment. It was making sure the young girl received her Constitutional rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

She'd already been diagnosed with cancer, fortunately of a well understood variety, with a prescribed course of treatment with a good success record.

No doctor had said she was free of cancer when this happened.

Children have a right to not be killed by their parents, Roe v. Wade to the contrary.

7 posted on 06/10/2005 4:28:00 PM PDT by muawiyah (q)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]


To: muawiyah

It's tougher decision that what you see, IMHO.

I would want the decision on whether to do chemo and radiation myself. These are not guaranteed cures, often they prolong life with great suffering in ever shortening intervals.

My mother got off this train; and after watching her go through it, if I have the choice, I will likely get off sooner than she.

Court ordered medical treatment - particularly for cancer - is offensive on its surface. There are some obvious exceptions, but I'd be careful to limit these.


11 posted on 06/10/2005 4:38:41 PM PDT by D-fendr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]

To: muawiyah
liberty? Then ask the girl what she wants.

Amazing that the state will not tolerate hurting a child for his mental well-being but tortures children trying to save their physical well-being and tears children away from their families, destroying them emotionally all in the name of "erring on the side of the child."

67 posted on 06/10/2005 8:40:15 PM PDT by eccentric (a.k.a. baldwidow)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson