By now, I’m sure you’ve heard the story of the 13 year old boy who has cancer and will most likely survive if he has chemotherapy. The one hitch is that he doesn’t want Chemo. He has the belief that the Chemo will kill him. I imagine that belief is erroneous. If you haven't heard about it, you can read more here.
His parents have decided to agree with him and citing “religious beliefs” they wish to try alternative methods of treatment. From my comfortable, non-stressed because I’m not in their shoes seat, it seems to me that they are making a bad choice. The government has stepped in and told the family that this 13 year old has to get chemo or he will be removed from his home and put into foster care.
What is interesting is that he has been quoted as saying to the judge that he doesn’t want Chemo, and that he would fight anyone who tried to give it to him.
The court’s have decided it is not his choice. I want to know why not? If he was a 13 year old girl, he would be allowed to have an abortion because it’s her body. In some states, she wouldn’t have to inform her parents. In all states, she could petition the state to circumvent her parents if they didn’t support her decision after informing them. The argument being that it’s her body and she should be free to do what she wants to do with her body.
So why can’t Daniel do what he wants to do with is body? Why can’t he refuse treatment? What gives the government the right to tell him has to have chemo? If the government can’t tell a 13 year old girl that she can’t have an abortion because she’s not old enough to really understand what she’s doing¬¬¬—because telling her that would be inhibiting her freedom, why can’t it give that freedom to a 13 year old boy?
Is it only your body if you have a uterus? Let me be clear, I find the entire “it’s her body” argument to be extremely unconvincing and irrelevant but this post isn’t about that. This post is about the seeming contradictory stand that our government has taken. It seems that the government is more concerned with forcing parents to raise children by the standards of the State than it is concerned about ensuring personal rights.
The court’s decision seems duplicitous. I realize that there are people who will say that the court is saving the kid’s life and that he will probably ultimately thank them. That argument cuts both ways. Maybe the baby that isn’t allowed to aborted will grow up and thank the court’s that they weren’t allowed to be aborted.
Daniel and his parents desire seems unwise and wrong to me. The court’s decision to impose it’s will seems very Orwellian.
Recent Comments