You're looking at this from a rights viewpoint; I'm looking at it from a survival viewpoint.
---
The same logic is used in gun control, socialized medicine, socialized education, drug laws etc... If it is the case that these parents are killing their child by not giving her the proper medical care (which we don't know to be the case, but just for teh sake of argument let's assume so), then they should be FREE to do so. A crime is committed when parents actively damage a child - via child abuse, but this is much different than deciding over medical treatments.
If you attempt to save this one child by forcible intervention, you are opening the doors to a government power grab, which, in the long run, will result in many, many more dead. IMO
Rights are more important than survival and much more difficult to defend.
Censorship is telling a man he can’t have a steak because a baby can’t chew it.
-Mark Twain
Yeah, rights are more important when talking about someone else's daughter. Rights are not quite that important when it means the life of your own daughter.
So you kill your child by not giving him/her medical care and we will come in and force you to do what is right in our sight concerning the child.
So you want to save your child and give her medical care and we will come in and force you to do what is right in our sight concerning the child.
The common denominator here is that the state gets to decide what is right. I have very little belief that the state has suddenly gained a conscience. I see little evidence of it anywhere else. Their cries of "we are only trying to help the child" are not very credible when nothing else seems to cause them to make similar cries.
It all falls into the idea that they should have the last word concerning those in need. The state may have some interest here, but there is a lot of differing medical opinions concerning the effect of the radiation.