southcitymom
Well-Known Member
Traditional cancer treatments are just that, treatments. They might not be a cure, but that are the best that we have. Natural remedies, voodoo, shamanism, etc. have never even been proven to be effective treatments for cancer. The only time I think those should even be *thought* about is when you've been to several doctors and they've all said that there is nothing else they can do. Then you have nothing to lose.
I don't understand why some people have this idea that it's okay to not get treatment for your child. What if it was a broken leg? Should a parent be able to allow their child to be disabled for life or die from an infection because they don't believe in medical treatment? When does it become abuse? If you believe this, shouldn't it be up to the family if the child goes to school or gets married at 13? This might sound nuts, but I am serious. If parents can make this life or death decision with the child, why not the ones I mentioned above?
The parents have the responsibility for the well-being of this child. They are in neglect of this duty. They should be charged with attempted murder.
You raise some great points and the Courts often find themselves in the tough position of sorting it all out - what's abuse and what's clearly within the rights of the family? The line is NOT always easy to find - I'm not suggesting it's always easy to find. In the case we're discussing right now - based on what I know - the Court has made a terrible decision. MOO.
The Law is clear (ie - an actual age is stated) about when marriage can be entered into. The Law is NOT clear about what a parent can or can't decide regarding a child's medical condition.
As far as a child with a broken leg and not seeking conventional medical treatment.....I fully support an individual family's rights to believe that with enough prayer, a person can be healed from any condition, and to practice spiritual healing, but I also agree that the circumstances need to be considered. Without more information about any specific case, I can't really form an opinion.
I will say that I have read of cases where I felt like the family's decision to not seek traditional Western medical solutions were negligent - alot of it depends on context.
If you are a sadist and you are not seeking healthcare for your child's broken leg because you enjoy seeing the child in pain and your child is begging you to take him to the doctor, that's negligent - your child should be protected from you. If you believe with all your heart that prayer to God is the only source of healing and that Western medical solutions are a forbidden religious option and you have practiced this way of handling health issues on yourself and your family for years, I'm going to consider the sincerity of your position and not assume that your choices are wrong or poorly contemplated even if I don't agree with those choices.
I understand that others may not see distinction between the two situations, but I see a big one.