We had
this case in our region this year where parents refused chemotherapy for their son based on religious beliefs (some sort of holistic, herbal, new-agey thing, if I remember right). The mother even went so far as to "run away" with her son after the court ruled against the parents, although they later returned and submitted to chemotherapy as ordered. I think basing decisions about medical care on religious beliefs is laughable, but in this case I found myself more inclined to agree with the parents. I don't think their sage waving and random-vitamin therapy is going to save their kid's life, but he is
their kid, so shouldn't they be the ones making this type of decision?
IMHO, believing that some sort of invisible Woo-Woo will cure your kid's cancer should be something that makes one ineligible to bear children, but we don't place those kinds of limits on reproduction in this country. If we're going to let just anybody choose to
create children, then is it fair to tell them they can't make other life-and-death decisions for their kids? How about the anti-immunization forces
? Do we take their kids away or, better yet, shrink-wrap them to protect the children of more sensible parents? How about parents who raise their kids on Cheetos and Mountain Dew? What makes a parent incompetent to care for its child, and who ultimately makes the decision?
I have strong feelings on both sides of this issue and no useful solution, and I'm glad I'm not in a position where I'll have to deal with it. It seems like the sacred-child-of-society slope is getting more slippery all the time. If I were a youngster like most of you folks, I'd be inclined to gather up my uterus and ovaries and go live in a cave.