Posted by J on March 22, 1999 at 11:24:36 {MWrEF4/YdaJ9k}:
In Reply to: **Hope fading fast 4 Deuck lad posted by Harold on March 22, 1999 at 10:12:30:
But who is to decide what is fundamentalist thinking?
Is it the position that all medicine is Satanic? Is it the belief that herbal remedies are the way to go? If these people were not religious but wanted to make the same choice would that incur the State seizing the kid? It is your opinion (and mine) that medical science/drugs are the better course. Does that mean all who make the choice for vitamin therapy or other non-mainstream treatment should have the right to choose taken from them?
If it is strictly the religious connotation than that is unequal application of the law and thus is prejudice.
These parents were not refusing all treatment. They wanted to make a choice in treatment.
I am opposed to a treatment that mutilates the body that is done strictly for a religious reason (i.e. - female circumcision). That crosses the line in my not so humble opinion.
However in the case of the Duecks, they wanted to make a choice of treatments for their son. It is their right to do so. In this case we are not talking about minor surgical action. We are talking about radical chemo and partial amputation of a limb that will not greatly improve his chances of living.
The CAS and the courts were wrong to take away the rights of the boy and the parents IN THIS CASE. I know of other cases where such action was necessary.