I haven't faced this type of situation, but the point is not what the parents want, the point is a reasonable degree of state protection for the child. In this case, it was reasonable for the state to scrutinize the situation, and also reasonable to conclude what it did -- that in this case, the child was competent to participate in the decision-making, and that the parents and child were willing to undertake an alternate type of treatment which, while not the first choice of mainstream medicine, would be under the direction of a legitimate medical professional and completely unreasonable, and that the state should NOT coerce the family into pursuing the recommended therapy they had already tried once and did not want to try again. The state did not yank the boy out of his home while the proceedings were underway.
However, there are plenty of cases -- often discovered too late for the child -- where parents are undertaking dangerous "therapies" for their children, and/or withholding therapies that provide an excellent or even virtually certain chance of saving the child from dying before reaching adulthood. The 4 year old girl who died from "forced water drinking therapy" and a 10 year old girl a few years earlier who died from "rebirthing therapy" (smothered to death while rolled up inside a heavy blanket from which the idiot "therapist" and mother were forcing her to struggle to get out of in a supposed re-enactment of birth), are two examples. Another family starved an infant to the brink of death, and to certain brain damage, by restricting it to a bizarre vegan diet that the parents believed was healthy. I would certainly find it appropriate for the state to respond to those tragedies by tracking down any other families who were participating in "therapies" under the direction of the same "therapists", or imposing such clearly non-life-sustaining dietary programs, and ensuring -- coercively, if necessary -- that they cease doing so.
Would I want the state to intervene if I was one of the idiot parents doing this crap to my kids? Of course not. But being sane, I most certainly do want the state to investigate reasonable suspicions of serious child abuse/neglect, and intervene if investigation finds clear proof that intervention is necessary to protect the child from severe harm. Are there going to be gray areas, where the state may step over the line, inappropriately imposing its own values or pursuing investigations which turn out to be unfounded? Yes, but that's not a reason to abandon the whole concept of state intervention in situations where there is reasonable suspicion of child abuse or neglect. And it is a reason for reasonable parents -- like the ones in this case -- to cooperate with reasonable legal proceedings.
Yes, there are definitely wackos out there and that's not good for the children involved. There are cases where people have done awful things to kids with their misguided ideas.
I saw my cousin go through chemo treatment with his 17-yr. old daughter, who later died. As you can imagine he has very strong opinions about this subject and what the family is going through in making decisions like this. I'm not arguing with the way this turned out, I'm saying that you are setting two different standards here.
"Would I want the state to intervene if I was one of the idiot parents doing this crap to my kids? Of course not. But being sane, I most certainly do want the state to investigate reasonable suspicions of serious child abuse/neglect, and intervene if investigation finds clear proof that intervention is necessary to protect the child from severe harm."
Sounds like you are saying they have no reason to ever investigate you but it would potentially be warranted for anyone else. IOW, you would welcome the involvement for everyone else but since you are a sane and reasonable person (by your own admission) then it would not be appropriate or necessary for you.