The Associated Press published a story of a 13 y/o boy who has been diagnosed with lymphoma a treatable form of cancer but his mom refuses to have him receive chemotherapy citing religious reasons.
The boy has had one treatment out of a series of six but did not go back for the rest as the mom chose to implement more natural means. According to the medical report on his recent visit, the tumor has continued to grow. The boy himself has said that he doesn’t want any treatment.
The state has stepped in and is taking custody of the boy so that he can be treated even against his or the mother’s will. The dad has agreed that the boy does need the treatment and is begging the mom to bring him for such. She is now on the run.
In light of this, where does one draw the line? Should the state have that right to treat this family namely the 13 y/o against his will? Does a family has a right to decide what they think is best for their children whether we agree with it or not?
This is a very tricky subject I think. If this boy as a minor, was being abused, then the state has a legal right to protect him, which may mean removal from the environment wherein this is being done.
Are there any similarities in this case? By the way, the boy does not read; he has been diagnosed with reading disability.
I wonder!
Should she (the mom) be forced to? Should her religious rights be over-ruled?
"who are you & what do you want" ... good read"
kingsleygrant's blog 
Recent Comments