I wouldn't do this to my children, but if we want to have a truly free society, then we need to respect the religious beliefs of others, no matter how idiotic these might seem to us.
If the Jehovah's Witnesses are wrong, they will have to answer for it to the One who judges us all. It really is none of our business, I think. Others may differ, but I would like to know the reasons, and where we get the right to tell others how to believe...
Actually it is our business. What if a religion dictates that the parents must sacrifice one of their children? Or mutilate him or her? Or what if a religion dictates it's alright to beat your wife and kill a teenage girl who was raped- like Islam. Sorry, that doesn't cut it.
Child was 16, the child lacks the life experience to do much other than parrot the brainwashing / teachings of his religious upbringing. Child was a MINOR.
On one hand I despise interference but on the other hand this is condoning a kind of reckless homicide on the part of the guardians in the name of *their* religious faith. But if 16 yr olds control their bodies for abortion (by judicial precedent) without parental consent, why should the *parents* be able to withhold lifesaving treatment? That isn't the parent's faith in practice (regarding *their own* health) but rather them extending control over a separate life entirely.
I don't believe crap like this should be allowed when it involves life and death and the life on the line is a minor. Even the repugnant Roe vs. Wade case history acknowledged the Public has a compelling interest in the life of its progeny.
This is consistent with my opposition to so-called religious practice in the form of genital mutilation be it female *or* male circumcisions (two examples). An individual's life (and physical body) is sacrosanct and it is that individual (when grown to maturity)--NOT a parent--who must be allowed to determine relgious-practice based "modifications" or life ending refusal of care. Again the parent is making permanent, irreversible decisions that child will have to either live with forever or die for as in this article's case.
It's one thing for an adult Christian Scientist like Jim Henson to refuse modern treatments and ultimately die. It's entirely *another* thing when the victim is a minor child entrusted to a parent or guardian until legally-recognized maturation.
The life, health and physical wholeness of a minor child should trump parents' religious inclinations every time. To do any less is little different from being those who were not Good Samaritans and walked right on by. To do any less is like turning a blind eye to abuse in the home next door. To do any less is like standing by as the Nazi's round up Gypses, Jews and homosexuals for death camps. Each of these scenarios have rationalizations, have values and principles at stake but all of them involve *not* acting to save or protect a life in danger.