I figure they can do as they wish as long as the child is getting attention for his cancer...after all death will be the final answer if what they are doing is incorrect...and death overrules everything.

Neglect

Neglect is frequently defined in terms of deprivation of adequate food, clothing, shelter, medical care, or supervision. Approximately 21 States and American Samoa, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands include failure to educate the child as required by law in their definition of neglect.5 Seven States further define medical neglect as failing to provide any special medical treatment or mental health care needed by the child.6 In addition, four States define as medical neglect the withholding of medical treatment or nutrition from disabled infants with life-threatening conditions.7


http://www.childwelfare.gov/systemwide/laws_policies/statutes/define.cfm

what state law did they break? I missed that? by legal definition...they weren't neglectful because they were doing something....just not what the state wanted. even with the legal definition I provided on the prevoius page and what winx just post....it doesn't specify what medical care. alternative meds can be claimed as medical....it's just a natural medical

it is better to die free

than to live under duress

they were doing procedures to treat the boy

they were not ignoring the situation

just remember when you get an ailment that if you are sidingwith the state on this --- you are in effect giving the state the right to treat your ailment as they see fit

in doing so i bet medicine will advance att the cost of the lives of the less fortunate

cause drug companies are going to need test cases to experiment on and this a step in that direction

I think it's because the cancer got worse when they used their method and then they still refused to do the treatment that would work.

so could it be the wrong charges they filed? because I don't think neglect would apply.

The law gives CPS the power to act as a guardian of the child if his life is in danger. The child had x-rays showing the cancer was growing. CPS and the court agreed that conventional medical treatment was required. Refusing to provide medical treatment for a sick child is legally considered "neglect".

it's a conflict between freedom of religion and the safety of the child

they haven't been able to reconcile this in the court system in the last 100 years so I'm not surprised there is so much argument in here

child endangerment...IMO would have been a btter case I guess. but the legal definition isn't neglect because he wasn't neglected...they just used a different method than mainstream medicine. whether it works or not. i know modern medicine isn't 100% either. personally i would do all i could for my son...but that is me.

actually i would have to disagree with it being neglect as they were not neglecting the situation

now child endangerment may apply

but even if endangerment did apply the constitution still is supposed to be the law of the land and any law that is contrary to the constitution is unjustified

adj just said the same thing I did

someone thinking like me....scarey

gmta

Actually I usually think along the same line as you Rose.

In this case, refusing to provide standard medical care is considered neglect.

Subjecting the child to something that could injure him would be considered "endangerment". There is some overlap. Sitting a child near the edge of a cliff could be considered either.

like I have said...I would do what I had to for my son....but there are people that think alternative medicine is healthier and better...and in some cases it is

i am on the fence on this one and what should be done....i can see both sides

I will say this once...don't ask me to repeat it because I won't lol

I DO NOT HAVE ALL THE ANSWERS

ok...I said it

i would suggest when the thought is borderline it is best to go by the rights as protected by the constitution

do you want the state to run your medical treatment regardless of what you want

this is a step in that direction

if you need blood but the only blood available is from an advanced aids patient should you be forced to accept that blood (you could be under the state having the right to force medical care on you)

The blood issue isn't a good analogy to me. We're talking about the life of a dependent child here.

and who is the child dependent on

IMO...it would be more clear cut if the child was being abused or intentionally neglected...like starved or locked in a closet, etc

double post