![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
A MN judge has decided that a family does not have the right to choose what medical treatment is right for their 13 year old son.
Quote:
But despite their rights to believe as they wish, the judge said several Minnesota statutes require parents to provide "necessary medical care" to their children, and that "complementary and alternative health care" is not enough.
So the parents have the right to choose, as long as they choose what they are told to choose?
This ruling could potentially be a major hit for homeopathic methods everywhere, not to mention parental rights. Previous cases have allowed the parent to choose, even when it was fairly evident that the non-standard method had a much higher risk of death. Parents' rights over-ruled the rights of a third party when it came to their children, especially when religious beliefs were added to the mix. Why the change? Why allow government to have such a powerful say in a family's private beliefs?
Yes, there is a rather high chance the child may die if he does not have chemo. He and his parents have admitted this. However, after one round of the proposed six, the boy was weak and ill and asked for it to stop. His parents agreed and looked into alternative methods. There's so much we are still learning and/or relearning about natural medicine, who's to say the alt meds might not provide a lasting cure?
Apparently a judge in Minnesota.
Quote:
But despite their rights to believe as they wish, the judge said several Minnesota statutes require parents to provide "necessary medical care" to their children, and that "complementary and alternative health care" is not enough.
So the parents have the right to choose, as long as they choose what they are told to choose?
This ruling could potentially be a major hit for homeopathic methods everywhere, not to mention parental rights. Previous cases have allowed the parent to choose, even when it was fairly evident that the non-standard method had a much higher risk of death. Parents' rights over-ruled the rights of a third party when it came to their children, especially when religious beliefs were added to the mix. Why the change? Why allow government to have such a powerful say in a family's private beliefs?
Yes, there is a rather high chance the child may die if he does not have chemo. He and his parents have admitted this. However, after one round of the proposed six, the boy was weak and ill and asked for it to stop. His parents agreed and looked into alternative methods. There's so much we are still learning and/or relearning about natural medicine, who's to say the alt meds might not provide a lasting cure?
Apparently a judge in Minnesota.
Tags: