But this isn't about whether chemo being better than other treatments. It's about government mandated health care and not only government mandated, but actually court ordering a very specific treatment, and against the will of the ill person and a parent.
Okay Gina, I'll try to take this thread back to where you want to go.
To you that's (government control of our children) the main issue, the top priority, or maybe what you value most, but to me,
in this instance, it's about saving this girl's life who has made a very stupid decision.
To me there is a time to stand up for individual freedoms but this isn't the time to pull out that card and take a stance with the mother's agenda - whose priorities in this matter IMO lack a common sense of loving parental guardianship having took the position of the right of freedom OVER her own daughter's welfare.
This girl's life is at stake! and I value that more than taking my typical stance against those who would take away our freedom of liberty.
In this instance I say let the enemy (big brother government) save this girl's life.
I'm looking at this as an INDIVIDUAL CASE which will save this child's life NOT as a threat which will open the door to a government takeover of our parenting rights. One could make such an argument but IMO they'd be cowering to that the "sky is falling" on our rights rhetorical argument which just isn't true in this case. Do you
really think that's what's this is about? Or do you think this is opportunity to make that the issue while you, like the parent, neglect to put this child's life as the priority?
Some look at this as an opportunity to wave their political flag of the right of freedom. I look at this as a opportunity to save the life of a child whose parent has shown that she is willing to place her of letting her little darling do whatever she wishes whenever she wants OVER the VALUE of doing what is best for child which is giving her a VERY GOOD chance at living her life OVER certain DEATH.
That may be good parental love to you but to me it it is a parent putting the welfare and love of her child secondary to her love of the freedom of rights. It is a time to put your foot down on a parent who does not have her child best interests at heart and is attempting to stand behind a cloud of political posturing to achieve victory over an irresponsible decision to let her little princess put her childish, "I'm invulnerable and want to do what feels good NOW" over the common sense responsible decision that will most likely save her life - and that my friend is being treated with CHEMO. To say chemo isn't the issue is to throw out a major premise to this argument and to try to create a half-truth.
Or as a friend of mine recently said which summed it up pretty well in one sentence, "Does she want to die or is she looking for attention?"
