Judge rules family can't refuse chemo for boy

This is wrong on so many levels.

Even if you believe the parents are "killing" their child, isn't that their choice?
His mother could have freely chosen to kill him before he was born, but now she can't?

But that's a silly argument, because (despite what some say) they would not be choosing to kill him, they would be choosing to avoid a medical treatment they disagree with. A medical treatment that has it's own pros and cons, benefits and nasty side-effects.

I now what I would choose, but can I force it onto someone else? If you're pro-choice, I don't see how you have a choice (pardon the pun) in the matter. Even if you're pro-life, isn't a 13 years old, old enough to make home decision for himself? Now, this article implied the kid is 13 but can't even read, so maybe he's mentally much younger, but if he was an average 13 year old, he should be able to make up his own mind.

It would indeed be a tragedy if this child dies. But is it the role of government to stop ALL tragedies? It is worth violating the parents and the child's rights just to keep him alive? Give me Liberty or give me Death! is how the saying goes... meaning that liberty is MORE important than life itself.. I guess we don't believe that anymore. At least this judge doesn't.


Judge rules family can't refuse chemo for boy - Kids and parenting- msnbc.com