(Tim, contributed by Ben Crum) Everyone knows it's wrong for the government to meddle in the health issues of individuals. So it surprised me to see this statement in an article about a 13-year-old boy being ordered by a court, against his parents' will, to undergo treatment for cancer:
Medical ethicists say parents generally have a legal right to make decisions for their children, but there is a limit.
Really? A limit? And how would this limit be defined? Does that mean a parent's desire, comfort, will, even rights can be trumped by those of another; namely, their child? The parents have a belief, but that belief can be considered to be in opposition to the child's well-being?
Apparently the boy, Daniel, who according to court papers cannot read, is unable to make a decision for himself so the court is doing it's best to protect his rights to liberty and life. Now if only this could be the precedent for the millions of other children whose parents act in ways that endanger the 'well-being', the very lives of those who cannot make choices for themselves.
From CNN
