Who determines the "need"? I certainly don't want the state or anyone else telling me my children must take the AIDS vaccine or Ritalin. You want something like that? Go to Red China and live there.
I am not really certain, why you are so angry....did I actually say anything about any AIDS vaccine or Ritalin...I dont think so...and for you to decide that is what I meant, you surely are mistaken..
What I am talking about, is if there is a child, who is in a serious accident, has severe internal bleeding, and needs a blood transfusion...that could be one scenario...should the child be allowed to die for lack of a transfusion?...
Or what about a child who has a strep infection, and the type of strep he has, is the dangerous one, proven with a culture swabbed from his throat...usually a course of antibiotics will knock that strep out...but if left untreated, such a strep could go on to further cause rheumatic fever or other severe complications...should the child be allowed to run the risk of having life threatening complications, due to the strep having further intrusion into the body?
There are many other examples that could be given...no need to jump all over Ritalin treatment, or an AIDS vaccine...
If you think the examples I have given above, kinds of cases which occur quite commonly, are justifiable cases where children should be denied medical treatment, because their parents object to the treatment, just say so...and I will take that to mean, that these children will be subjected to further declining health, due to their parents objections to the 'cure' for their medical condition, and that would be fine with you...
And the fact that you tell me to go to Red China to live, is something I will overlook...and wont say what I think of it...
I was simply trying to figure out what folks think on this subject, and unfortunately, you have some real problem with that...