Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticCat
As a general rule, I'd agree. But that is because, as a general rule, I'd assume that the parents are acting with the child's best interests in mind. But if the parents are doing something that seriously endangers the child's life, then somebody has to step in.
|
I know, and that's why I see both sides. I worry about where that line is and who defines it. Will someone try to use this case as a precedent from preventing all parents from being able to choose hospice, for example, if the chemo would only lengthen life but not save it? Would it matter if it gave a kid 6 more months vs. 1 year, but the quality of life in those 6 months would better than the quality of life in that year? What about DNR and other "living will" kinds of issues?
This case in and of itself seems very cut and dried to me, as it does to all of you. It just makes me think farther. In many ways, I feel like we're being told more and more by the government how to live our lives. 1984 was way off in the guesstimate of the year, but it does feel like Big Brother is becoming more and more of a reality and my gut instinct is to buck anything that looks like it these days.