Is the treatment 100% guaranteed? 80%? 50%? Can anyone ever really know? Who says “when”? Would you advocate this girl be forcibly removed from her parents’ home so that she gets “approved” treatment? Is natural death ever acceptable?
Obviously on some level I’m playing devil’s advocate here, but I think it’s an issue conservatives should be concerned about — now more than ever. At what point IS it a parent’s right to overrule “their betters” when it comes to their children? Because the same arguments I’ve read here could apply to everything from outlawing homeschooling to removing children from “superstitous” (i.e. religious) homes.
Actually, we do know how effective treatment is--as I already said, it is better than 85% for leukemia. And I am perfectly okay with children being removed from the homes of abusive parents, no matter what form that abuse takes. Refusing proper medical care for a child, to the point where that child dies, is extremely abusive, IMO.
Obviously on some level I’m playing devil’s advocate here, but I think it’s an issue conservatives should be concerned about — now more than ever. At what point IS it a parent’s right to overrule “their betters” when it comes to their children? Because the same arguments I’ve read here could apply to everything from outlawing homeschooling to removing children from “superstitous” (i.e. religious) homes.
You have to apply intelligence and logic to the situation, and judge the situation on its merits. Telling parents that they have no right to refuse medical treatment for their child who will die without that treatment is not even comparable to home schooling. Do children die from being home schooled? Or from going to church on Sunday? I don't think so. Unless the parents are actively harming their children, how they raise them is their business.