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

To: TigersEye

As adults, they have the legal right to make that decision for themselves, but not for their child. A child is not considered capable of understanding fully the consequences of such a decision, and the legal assumption is that the child would take the life-saving treatment if he or she were able to understand the alternatives.

If the issue were that the child will die in 2 months without treatment, and in 6 months with treatment, then I think the parents’ decision to withhold treatment would probably be allowed.


28 posted on 02/08/2014 5:23:32 PM PST by exDemMom (Current visual of the hole the US continues to dig itself into: http://www.usdebtclock.org/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies ]


To: exDemMom

What is the point of legal guardianship then? Why should anyone bother to raise their children if the state owns them?


29 posted on 02/08/2014 5:34:21 PM PST by TigersEye (Stupid is a Progressive disease.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies ]

To: exDemMom
If the issue were that the child will die in 2 months without treatment, and in 6 months with treatment,...

Medicine is an art not a science. It can't make guarantees like that about anything.

30 posted on 02/08/2014 5:35:38 PM PST by TigersEye (Stupid is a Progressive disease.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | 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