No. To allow parents to refuse lifesaving medical treatment for their children would imply that the law believes that children are merely their parents' property. They are individuals and the law should - and does - regard their rights.

The thinking on chemo is that in 6 months, there could be another treatment on the market to provide a more favorable outcome. When there is no hope of extending life, chemo and radiation become palliative (applied only to make the patient more comfortable, because to do nothing would cause the cancer to spiral even more out of control and therefore be more painful for the patient). Palliative care is pretty standard.

Even with all of the above, the previous poster is correct - chemo and radiation do result in suffering for the patient. There really are no easy answers. But to allow parents to refuse their children the opportunity to stay alive, is out of the question.

thats murder

I don't think what you're saying is hypocritical, Michael. Like you, I believe that parents should, in most cases, have the right to decide upon how their children are raised, even when I don't agree with the decisions the parents are making. But there are limits. It's just an acknowledgement that children have some rights as individuals that even their parents may not violate. Unfortunately since some parents cannot or will not ensure that their children are properly cared for the rest of society must insist upon it through legal means.

Well I feel like a hypocrit at the moment. I believe a parent should have ultimate say over their children. I believe gov't needs to stay out of parent - child issues, unless of course there is any form of abuse going on. I believe a family has the right to worship God in their own way.
With all that said, here's where I feel like a hypocrit. If a child is injured and will die from the injury without surgery or medication, then I think the best interest of the child has to come first. I cringe when I saw that because if their religion forbids going to a dr, then who am I to tell them back off, we are doing it anyway? Maybe because the child is too young to make up their mind about such things. I certainly would not interfere with one of the parents not wanting to go, they are old enough to make that decision. while I might want to honor the parents wishes, I don't think I could if I knew medical care would save the childs life. I would have to go behind their back. I'm really not a hypocritical type. but I sure feel it on this one!

I thing it depends of the disease. If the child will suffer very very much... I think I'd rather let him go in peace... But child's health should always come first!

It is okay if an adult patient in clear state of mind refuses lifesaving treatment, but if parents deny their children livesaving treatment, it is abuse. The chilld should be put in foster care.

THE CHILD'S HEALTH MUST COME FIRST. ALWAYS!!!

no

To refuse to save your child's live is equivalent to abuse.

Why you become a doctor, for saving of human life and why we go to doctor, for advice because he has education.