Or is she exercising her religious freedom? Or is she guilty of nothing at all?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090520/ap_on_re_us/us_forced_chemo
If it were the father, would the meida response be any different?
sorry, *media*
Before this story really got legs, I think I remember it beinf reported that the child in quesion was the one refusing the chemo--and the parents were respecting his wishes. If that is the case....how does it change what she is doing? Or does it not?
Oh! Lonesome Me
Some people need to learn diseases are real; your god is not.
♥ ~Sigy the Arctic Kitty~♥
I think the woman is honest but naive and she bought into a new age religious scam with a "Native American" flavour.
Unfortunately, I'm not suprised at her ignorance and stubbornness given the state of public education and the health care system in the US. It's really scary.
This is not a question of religious freedom. The laws in most countries, including the US, place the child's health needs above the parent's religious freedoms.
And yes, I believe that the media would be more harsh in the case of a father acting this way.
Paralyzer
It's definitely wrong what she's doing. I mean, if you've been praying for a cure for years and the medical solution is right there, it's time to put religion aside and get some common sense.
MALS Grad Student
I do believe it is child abuse.
Religious freedom (to an extent) and ignorance is no excuse to deny your child the right to live and to allow him to die for her own selfish reasons. I believe she is manipulating him to believe that this is what God wants; this is what she wants. This is to please her own religious beliefs so she can "buy her ticket into heaven" for being a good mother/Christian for her son. I do not think this situation will turn out well.
And yes, if it was the Father perpetrating this. It would be more controversial. He would be seen more as an abuser and hateful, than the mother.
Colonel Reb
I don't know if it's neglect or not. It's definitely borderline. I'm not sure I like the idea of the government getting involved in this one. It's not like the parents simply refused to do anything for the boy, they were seeking other treatment. I don't like the judge's ruling. They're not seeking treatment he prefers. That's all I can see. I think this sets a very dangerous precedent for the future, as much of what courts decide is based on precedent (unless there is none of course).
That being said, the woman did run off from the father with the child. She's not getting very good press over the move, as I think even most people who are wary of governmental involvement like me don't really think she's handling this right, but if it was reversed he would be getting blasted from here to Mars over it.
Tornader Chaser
i think that the law has the responsibility of protecting this boy. when sound medical treatment has a good hope of curing someone of their ills.......then it would be absolutely irresponsible, foolish, selfish, and stupid not to get the proper treatment.
if the boy didnt have much hope of being cured......then i would say respect his wishes. but no siree, this boy can be cured.......so his mother should be ashamed of herself and should be charged as a criminally negligent parent.
Chevalier
Yeah that is a tough one to call. But I am going to have to go with no it is not abuse.
I fervently believe in the right to practice religion but at the same time it was court ordered and in his best interest to receive the treatment.
So based on her desire to do what she thinks is in the child's best interest I would have to say that it is not abuse.
And yes if it where a father that ran with the child there would be a national outrage and the screaming harpies at NOW would be calling for blood.
People would be holding vigils for the poor mother who is now devoid of HER child.
My Tractor Is Green
She is guilty of violating the law in her state, which requires parents to provide necessary medical treatment for their children, and of course we all know the doctors have determined that chemo is necessary for this child. She has a right to exercise her religious freedoms, but she does not have the right to endanger her child while doing so. What if her religion advocated feeding her child a teaspoon of mercury a day to help him grow closer to God? I believe in religious freedoms. I have attended church for most of my life, and I can tell you firsthand that all kinds of mentally disturbed people use religion as a shield and a disguise while they engage in bizarre, aberrant and sometimes illegal behavior. You are correct that the child has refused chemotherapy. However, he is a child and does not have the ability to make reasonable decisions about his future. Secondly, he is developmentally disabled and the authorities believe he is repeating what he has been told. If he had the wish to drink Drano, should the parents respect that wish too? Fruitcakes like these parents are going to be the end of religious freedoms in the this country because they abuse them and their children in the process. One day the state is going to have more control over children than parents do, and law school students will look at cases like this as the reason why. Freedom is a gift and so are children. Neither should be abused and both should be honored and cherished.
RoVale
If it's his decision, then she is doing nothing wrong. People have the right to refuse medical treatment. Chemotherapy makes people very sick and it isn't always effective. Maybe he's decided that he would rather take his chances with something else than go through another round of medical treatment that may or may not work for him.
Orignal From: Tips: Is this mother guilty of child abuse in the form of medical neglect?
Post a Comment