(January 26, 2015 at 2:55 pm)Lek Wrote: My position is that because she had a lethal condition, that the parents, who are closest to the girl and her situation and needs, make an appropriate decision for treatment.
An appropriate decision? She died, Lek. And she didn't have to either; the prognosis gave her a good chance of survival if she'd continued the treatment she was taken off of. Based on all the medical knowledge available, this was exactly the opposite of an appropriate decision.
Quote: This was not murder or suicide, but death from a natural cause.
A death by natural causes that was totally avoidable, and in fact instigated by the choices of the parents. They were the cause of the death, because they had a method of stopping it right there, and actively chose to do the opposite of that.
Quote:Now would you answer my question to you? Why is okay for an adult to avoid excruciating procedures and let a disease run its course but not to allow a child that option? Why is it okay not to put your dog through painful chemo therapy that could save his life, but it's not okay to do that for your child?
I... did answer that? In the post you were quoting from, but for some reason you decided to cut out the part that contained the answer. And speaking of answering questions, that post also had some from you... that you really did avoid, so...

"YOU take the hard look in the mirror. You are everything that is wrong with this world. The only thing important to you, is you." - ronedee
Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!
Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!