Quote Originally Posted by leo9 View Post
It's always a tough call when a parent refuses medical treatment for a child. We've had a brand new measles epidemic because of parents refusing to have their children vaccinated, and we've had the children of Jehovah's Witnesses taken into care so their lives could be saved by blood transfusions. Somewhere between those extremes the law has to decide how much control a parent is allowed over a child's health, and I'm glad I'm not the one who has to rule on it.
I'd like to see how this works out.
In a way it is easy enough. When children are neclected or abused, the state has a responsiblity to step in. Likewise to take care of orphans.

But the state cannot, and should not, interfere with parents who are doing what they think is best for their children.

I have seen programs about grown ups too, either old people, or invalids, who were medicated in ways that really harmed them, but if a doctor thinks they should be medcated, medicated they are, life quality or damage non-withstanding and the families could do=nothing! (UK.)

Are we living in a dictatorship? Or under Stalin? Or what happened to freedom here?