I did NOT say I thought the government should force these parents to subject their child to chemotherapy if they choose to reject it.
I understand . In part it's why I chose to put forth the government-power versus individual-rights issue.
I don't think a court should be able to do that any more than I think the courts should have been able to order a helpless woman to be starved to death.
A government that wields the power to force a person to not take a drug -- as is the case with prohibition of some drugs, also known as the WOsomeD -- wields the power to force a person to take a drug. What do you think about government coercing parents to put their elementary-school-age children on Ritalin?
Rhetoric from the supporters of public-school say that if public schools were eliminated in favor of the free market providing schooling that private schools would not take bad kids. I doubt it would be even a small fraction as many kids as public schools coerce "bad" kids to take Ritalin.
Standard operating procedure for the FDA is to let five, six, ten or more people suffer or die from lack of medication or therapy rather than grant FDA approval for a drug or therapy that causes one person to suffer or die from the drug or therapy. That's government/FDA forced prohibition of life saving, suffer-reducing drugs.
Are you for or against the WOD? Consistent to principle I am against the government forcing prohibition of drugs and against the forced ingestion of drugs. The common denominator is force. Specifically, the initiation of force.
The irony being that the problem Abraham had with the chemo is one that is often alleviated by using marijuana: incessant nausea.
No one seems to talk about that.