Should the government step in when parents' beliefs may harm their children?

This article below touches a bit on a discussion we had at our book club meeting last month.

A mother testified that religious beliefs prevent her son from taking chemo. Doctors said he will likely die without it.
Read the whole story here:
http://www.startribun...

I agree with Pharyngula's take, as with Richard Dawkin's take when he speaks of Amish children being taken from school. You can read Pharyngula's take here:
http://scienceblogs.c...

What do you think?

Also, I RARELY read comments under news stories because they usually make me want to gouge my eyes out, but I loved this comment:



The city was flooded. A pious man climbed onto his roof and prayed to God to save him. A rescue boat came and offered a ride. He declined, saying 'God will save me." This happened again and a third time. Each time, he declined, saying "God will save me." He drowned. When he got to heaven, he asked why God didn't save him. God looked baffled "What do you mean? I sent you three boats."

posted by leftyred on May 10, 09 at 11:05 pm |

What do you think?

No, I don't think the government should step in.

Bottom line is that a person's choice even though I may disagree with it, does not grant me (or you) the right to go in and take away that freedom.

If I go and say that a family's choice to keep their child from potentially life saving chemo is "wrong" (purely subjective) and that the government should step in...where does one eventually draw the line? WHO is the one to say where that line is drawn??

I don't believe I or the government have the right to tell another how to make those hard choices. How can I? I would no more want to assert some authority over the choice of whether this kid should live or die than I would in a woman's right to an abortion.