“This child will die without treatment. The law has never allowed parents to decide to let their child die without treatment. A person can make that decision for himself or herself, but not for a minor.”
The law allows it all the time if the parents don’t have the money for the treatment. Not only that, the law specifically allows, yes even encourages, the killing of un-born offspring if the woman feels she may be inconvenienced in the least.
As to whether this kid will die without “treatment” we don’t know IMHO. People are cured through faith sometimes. Probably more often than we will ever know... To that there is no doubt in my mind.
If it were my kid, I wouldn’t trust my faith enough, but that’s just me. Sorry to have to say it, but I would want a plan “B”.
At any rate, not trusting the parents to make these decisions and turning it over to the state is a slippery slope that perhaps we should not go down...
Yes, we all know that a woman can kill her child at any time as long as the child is still attached by the placenta. This case has nothing to do with that. Also, maybe you are not aware of this, but the government pays for treatments for kids whose families can't afford it. There are also many charities who will help families pay for cancer treatments. Did you know that St. Jude's Children's hospital operates purely on donations and never charges families for cancer treatments for their children? Not having money is not an excuse.
As to whether this kid will die without “treatment” we don’t know IMHO. People are cured through faith sometimes. Probably more often than we will ever know... To that there is no doubt in my mind.
The survival time of untreated leukemia is measured in weeks. People do not survive cancer without treatment. Many people do not survive even with treatment. The survival rate of treated leukemia is around 85%.
At any rate, not trusting the parents to make these decisions and turning it over to the state is a slippery slope that perhaps we should not go down...
Where parents make decisions that are actively harmful for their child, the state can and does step in all the time. There is no slippery slope here. Parents do not have the absolute right to starve their children, beat them, expose them to pornography, etc. Refusing life-saving medical treatment is in the same category.