| cathyb 2006-08-01, 9:26 pm |
|
awthraw...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> Their parents decide what medical risks their children will take.
>
> The bigger "egad" is a State usurping the parents. While you would
> obviously prefer that your child be subjected to chemo if, God forbid,
> s/he had cancer, you surely wouldn't be happy if outsiders took custody
> away from you to inflict their own decision in your place.
The issue, of course, is whether the *child*, currently not considered
legally capable of making the decision, would prefer it when or if he
grows old enough to reflect on the issue.
There are plenty of parents who object to outsiders taking custody of
their child when their treatment of said child is considered abusive or
negligent. These decisions are made all the time. So what?
Surely no-one can deny that the rights of a child *should* override
those of a parent not acting in their best interest?
[vbcol=seagreen]
>
|