Reply #15: You don't get it. [View All]

The state steps in when it's a minor and the treatment in question has a good chance of saving the child's life and withholding it will certainly result in the child's death.

The state, in other words, feels it has a vested interest in bringing minor citizens to adulthood.

The kid has a 98% chance of being alive in 5 years with treatment. He has a 90+% chance of being cured with no recurrence of the cancer, ever, with treatment. He has a slim chance, <5%, of being alive in 5 years without treatment and no chance of a cure without treatment.

The state doesn't step in when competent adults refuse treatment. The state doesn't step in when a child is being refused treatment for non life threatening conditions.

Try to realize this is a life or death issue. Allowing parents ownership of their kids the way they own a car or a couch would result in dead kids for illnesses that are treatable.

What's worse, a parent with his toes trod upon or a dead child?