Quote:
Originally posted by suviko
Can parents also chose to beat their kid to death?
|
What does that have to do with parents trying to heal their child without killing her/leaving her worse off? We're talking about parents that looked at the facts, consulted physicians and are doing their best for their daughter without aggravating her state.
Quote:
|
I think the state should make an intervention when parents are risking their child's life.
|
Very true, but in this case, even successful surgery represents a risk to the child's life and well-being. Being left a cancer-free vegetable doesn't sound like a valid option to me, especially since once this story is resolved, the general public will move on, while the parents still have to deal with whatever situation they're left with.
Quote:
|
Surgery hasn't complitely eliminated cancer in 100% cases, but it is BY FAR better option than to chew a few funny leaves and cross your fingers. This "some method" could be even magnetic fields, color therapy or any other "alternative remedy", I don't give a dhingy, they can do that AND have the surgery. Why is it one or the other?
|
They can't do both because if the surgery is unsuccessful, they child will either be dead or irreversably brain-damaged. Don't get me wrong, I sincerely wish that she could just go through with the surgery and be done with it, but the facts of the case are stacked squarely against her. Schneidermann said that the parents should make their child more comfortable and this is exactly what they're doing.