One: That
children do not belong to the parents.
Two: That
when the parents insist on choosing something for their child that will not
benefit it, others step in; that other is often the State.
The press
fanned the flames and reactionaries took those statements as meaning the State
owns your children. Witness this headline:
That
conclusion could not be further from the truth. There is nothing wrong with
those two statements per se.
One:
Children are autonomous beings in the care of their parents until such time as
they grow up, thus technically they belong to themselves.
Two: When
parents suck, DFACS, relatives, and others step in to protect the children.
These are
things civilized and balanced societies have come to realize that work.
There is
much precedence in the SCOTUS on the issue of parental rights weighed against a
child's when politics, religion, lifestyle, etc., come into play. High courts
of other countries have ruled similarly and parent's rights have often been
upheld.
From what I
understand about the Charlie Gard case, it is that the parents wanted to subject
their son to a procedure that had never been used for cases like his. Even
though doctors said there was a slim chance that experimental procedure might
help him, it would, at best, simply make him linger longer in the deaf, blind,
and almost brain-dead condition he is in.
The press
fanned the flames, and reactionaries took those flames and spread them.
But the
question has been: What is best for Charlie?
How the
courts got involved, I have not been able to ascertain, but I know that when
really bad news about their child's impending death is given, some parents opt
to take things to court and force the doctors to "do something". Did
that happen in this case?
Like I said,
I have not been able to determine it.
No comments:
Post a Comment