So, how does the judge in this case reconcile his ruling with the fact that he has no authority to make such a ruling?
More and more judges are doing this lately. The ruling is troubling for a number of reasons. First, it amounts to legislating from the bench. That’s bad enough because judges don’t have any Constitutional authority for that.
Second, the ruling cannot only apply to a certain person, the boy in this case, but can now be used as precedent in other cases which may or may not have much in common with this particular case.
Third, does the government have the right to force someone to receive treatment? In my mind, that violates some basic Rights we all have. Granted, we all have the Right to Life, but can methods to preserve life be enforced by the Court? If so, does it remain a Right?
Fourth, does the government know what is best, or do individuals know what is best for themselves? That question is posed by the attorney for the boy’s family.
On the other hand, does stupidity nullify individual rights? How about religious beliefs?
There was similar story from Utah a couple of years back where the parents of Parker Jensen disagreed with a physician’s diagnosis and refused to get chemotherapy for their son. The Jensens had to leave the State to avoid the court ruling, and were subsequently indicted on charges of kidnapping.
Parker is still alive today and in good health. The State of Utah eventually dropped the kidnapping charges against the Jensens. The Jensens tried to sue the State for damages, but were denied.
One of Glenn Beck’s 9-12 principles is that Parents are the ultimate authority for their family, not the government. How do you 912ers feel about that in light of this case?
I’d appreciate comments.
Judge rules family can’t refuse chemo for boy – Yahoo! News.
I agree that our Right to Life extends itself to a right to die if such unfortunate circumstances come to us. Would you want to be kept alive on a ventilator as a “vegetable” for the rest of your life against your will? This boy has the right to not have to live with having to deal with therapy after therapy, surgery after surgery if he so chooses. It is not the government’s or the court’s choice of whether he receives treatment or not.