We cannot allow this idea to gain a toe-hold, let alone a foot-hold.

If there exists a court precedent which allows the government to intervene with a person's belief by forcing them to seek medical attention when those beliefs go against it, then you have just effectively removed freedom of choice.

C'mon people...

Do not support this is any way.

That would be self-determination!

Who is God?

Who is to say the child will live even if chemo is used?

Um it's already happened many times over, been happening since I was a kid. The current legal question comes in at what point does the state have the authority. Not saying I agree, just stating what is.

at what point does the state have the authority?

At the point all direct living relatives are dead!

I might agree, not sure I have mixed feelings on the issue. But the thing is that is not the current law in many states.

i agree to the point that I hate seeing children suffer though. it's a big thing with me. but i can see people rights. not an easy answer IMO

Mandating medical treatment is wrong.

Period.

there are so many religious beliefs as well as athiests that use alternative medicines!!!!!!!! I never realized how many

Its not a hard answer if you relize you have no right to the question!

well using that logic

if you put your kid in a car and go somewhere

you are endangering them and should be charged

-----------------------------------

Killed by Car Accidents

Highway fatalities account for more than 94% of all transportation deaths. There were an estimated 6,289,000 car accidents in the US in 1999. There were about 3.4 million injuries and 41,611 people killed in auto accidents in 1999. The total number of people killed in highway crashes in 2001 was 42,116, compared to 41,945 in 2000. An average of 114 people die each day in car crashes in the U.S

http://www.unitedjustice.com/death-statistics.html

---------------------------------------


your bet is

interesting

kid has no option to refuse representation

they are a minor

and it is court appointed and paid for by the (so called) parent

since the govt can dictate the care and up bringing of the kids maybe they should start paying the bills for them

maybe seeing how eating meat can lead to heart attack if you feed your kid a hamburger you lose the kid

just where does it stop

The place where it gets sticky is when modern medicine has a guarantee of working. It's been likened to legalized homicide. It basically treats the kids a parents property and I have a problems with that too.

not even modern medicine is guaranteed. there are peole that have gone through chemo...and still died after being sick from chemo and radiation. nothing is guaranteed as far as treatments

that is why they call it practicing medicine

practice makes perfect huh? lol

In this case I have to agree. But the Fanta's post appears to apply to ALL cases. There are cases where there is a more definite outcome between western medicinal treatment and not.

sometimes modern medicines is needed...sometimes it's not necessary

(as adj says) what do I know lol

An example for what I mentioned above might be a child who has a kidney that is about to rupture. Modern medicine is all but a virtual guarantee of a cure. The lack of it is certain death. Does the parent have the right to refuse?

IMO...if adults want to treat themselves with alternativ emeds only...then they have that right...as far as kids, I would do all I could as a mom. so I don't know where the government should jump in or not. when does it interfere with people's right to beliefs?

yes

unless the govt takes the kid and puts them in foster care

when you let govt dictate how one lives life you no longer have a life

it is a law prohibiting the practice there of (religion)

and it is unconstitutional

and that should put an end to it