# In the US can a woo-beleving \[mum\] be forced to permit life saving treatment to her kid? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [December 21, 2012, 6:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-the-us-can-a-woo-beleving-mum-be-forced-to-permit-life-saving-treatment-to-her-kid/644713 "2012-12-21T06:00:53Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Simple\_Linctus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Simple\_Linctus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Simple_Linctus)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2012, 6:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-the-us-can-a-woo-beleving-mum-be-forced-to-permit-life-saving-treatment-to-her-kid/644713/1 "2012-12-21T06:00:53Z")
There’s a case in the papers in the UK at the moment, which I’m surprised hasn’t made the SDMB (but the again it hasn’t made JREF either, and Ben Goldacre only made one tweet on it as far as I can see) where basically a seriously woo-woo, as I believe the term is, mother named Sally is trying to stop her kid named Neon Roberts from gettin life saving surgery for very stupid reasons, to the extent that this isn’t something like refusing to vaccinate or something, she’s essentially refusing life saving treatment in favour of crystals and diet changes and so on. Much more information about the case is avaliable on google using the info I gave above - all you really need to know I think, for the purposes of this question, is that treatment is avaliable, everyone who knows what they are talking about thinks the kid should have it - including the independent expert appointed by the mother, the risks are not negligible but are reasonably small - I think we’re talking 20% chance of muteness or something, and the alternative is basically certain death. So what’s the procedure in the US if something like this happens? Do parents/guardians have “ownership” of their kids to the extent they can basically force them to die by refusing medical treatment? Or would the courts step in like here? By the way once this question is answered I’m cool with this going to the pit because this silly bint really deserves it. But maybe another purpose made thread is better? Almost always the identities of everyone involved here would be anonymous, by the way. Court cases like this are not exactly common as I understand it, but I think there are a couple (UK couple not US couple) a month. But they became revealed because earlier in the case there was an appeal to find her and her son as it seemed they had run away. Bonus question: Still, I don’t understand why this means their identities are still in the press - there was a 15 year old schoolgirl who ran away with her teacher in the summer with her name all over the place for a week but since she was found there has been an injunction (or similar) against mentioning her name, and I don’t really see why this kid’s identity should be in the press either now that he has been found - would welcome input from those who know UK law on that. ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2012, 6:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-the-us-can-a-woo-beleving-mum-be-forced-to-permit-life-saving-treatment-to-her-kid/644713/2 "2012-12-21T06:29:35Z")
Hard to answer. It’s not too uncommon for kids in the US to die under the “spiritual care” of parents or their clergy. Depending on state laws (Wisconsin has some kind of exemption to neglect laws related to medical care and religious observance) and which way the political winds are blowing, they may or may not be prosecuted. More often than not they are prosecuted, but they don’t always convicted. But like I said, that is when the whole situation has gone to hell and the kid is already dead. I don’t hear about many cases where the kid is still alive and the parents are battling it out to keep their kid out of a doctor’s care. I suspect that there is a pretty good likelihood that a court would intervene on behalf of the kind, but I have no stats to back this up. Also, I think the likelihood increases if the medical condition is well understood and there is broad general medical consensus on how to treat the condition, and particularly if the outcome is very likely to be positive. ---
**Author:** ![dtilque](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/d6d6ee/32.png) [@dtilque](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dtilque)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2012, 8:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-the-us-can-a-woo-beleving-mum-be-forced-to-permit-life-saving-treatment-to-her-kid/644713/3 "2012-12-21T08:02:40Z")
There’ve been a couple cases here in Oregon where prayer-healing parents have been convicted of child neglect or manslaughter for not getting their kids medical treatment. [http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-201\_162-20113653.html](http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-201_162-20113653.html) Looks like there’s been a similar case in [Oklahoma](http://www.newson6.com/story/18629349/broken-arrow-mom-found-guilty-in-sons-death) The authorities probably could force the issue before any deaths occur, but they usually don’t find out about them until afterward. ---
**Author:** ![dstarfire](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dstarfire/32/5762_2.png) [@dstarfire](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dstarfire)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2012, 8:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-the-us-can-a-woo-beleving-mum-be-forced-to-permit-life-saving-treatment-to-her-kid/644713/4 "2012-12-21T08:42:29Z")
IN the US, the usual procedure is that somebody other than the parent notices the child seems to be suffering from some sort of mistreatment or neglect and reports it to the police or or Child Protective Services (gov. agency in charge of protecting children from abusive parents). They will then investigate the childs situation (home, diet, living conditions, etc.) and determine if the child is receiving at least the legally required minimum of care. If they decide a parent is not providing that required level of care, the child is removed from the parents care and placed in foster care, or with a relative (if one is suitable and willing). I think the child can be returned to the parents later on, if the parents can show they are now capable of (and likely to) provide proper care for the child. The general consensus (here in the US) is that anybody that disconnected from reality (like the OP described) is not fit to be a parent, and the child’s welfare takes precedence over the parents spiritual beliefs. ---
**Author:** ![njtt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ecd19e/32.png) [@njtt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/njtt)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2012, 9:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-the-us-can-a-woo-beleving-mum-be-forced-to-permit-life-saving-treatment-to-her-kid/644713/5 "2012-12-21T09:43:42Z")
As I understand it, in this case the kid has been seeing doctors, and has already had some quite extensive medical treatment, perhaps even surgery (I do not quite remember the details). The mother has not opposed medical care for him altogether. However, the doctors are saying further treatment (including radiation) is needed, and she is baulking at that for some reason. Anyway, it seems very different from cases where a child is kept away from medical care altogether. ---
**Author:** ![solosam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9d8465/32.png) [@solosam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/solosam)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2012, 12:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-the-us-can-a-woo-beleving-mum-be-forced-to-permit-life-saving-treatment-to-her-kid/644713/6 "2012-12-21T12:57:08Z")
It varies by state. Technically, the parent can make all decisions regarding the medical care of their children. Some states require these cases to be reported as potential child abuse / neglect. This is why you see lawsuits every now and then, when some parent (for better or worse) wants to make an objectionable choice for their child and comes into conflict with the law. Cite: Emergency Care and Transportation of the Sick and Injured 9th Edition, 2005 ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2012, 1:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-the-us-can-a-woo-beleving-mum-be-forced-to-permit-life-saving-treatment-to-her-kid/644713/7 "2012-12-21T13:39:42Z")
Yes, there have been cases in the U.S. where courts have compelled parents to allow their minor child to receive medical treatment. [Here’s one case](http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=7674820&page=1#.UNRkRqwdXEQ) where parents stopped therapy for a highly curable cancer (Hodgkin lymphoma) in their son, in favor of “natural healing”. They were ordered by a court to resume medical treatment, the mom and son disappeared for awhile and then resurfaced and reluctantly agreed to evidence-based care. [In a similar case](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_v._Cherrix): "Cherrix was diagnosed with Hodgkin disease in 2005 and underwent three months of chemotherapy, a standard medical treatment with significant side effects. Hodgkin disease is highly treatable, even curable, type of lymphoma; 96% of young patients survive at least five years after conventional treatment.[7] He said later that the side effects were so severe that he had wished he were dead during treatment.[8] In 2006, when the cancer returned, he rejected further conventional treatment and went to Mexico to receive Hoxsey Therapy (an herbal concoction based on the plants eaten by a horse with a swollen leg in the 19th century), which has been illegal in the United States since 1960, after it was proven to be ineffective.[9][10][11] His parents were charged with medical neglect as a result of this decision." The parents in this case later “won” a higher court decision and the Virginia legislature decided to allow medical treatment refusal for teens between 14 and 17 if they and their parents wanted to opt out of evidence-based care. ---
**Author:** ![WhyNot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/c77e96/32.png) [@WhyNot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WhyNot)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2012, 1:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-the-us-can-a-woo-beleving-mum-be-forced-to-permit-life-saving-treatment-to-her-kid/644713/8 "2012-12-21T13:48:16Z")
> [@dstarfire](#): > > IN the US, the usual procedure is that somebody other than the parent notices the child seems to be suffering from some sort of mistreatment or neglect and reports it to the police or or Child Protective Services (gov. agency in charge of protecting children from abusive parents). They will then investigate the childs situation (home, diet, living conditions, etc.) and determine if the child is receiving at least the legally required minimum of care. > > If they decide a parent is not providing that required level of care, the child is removed from the parents care and placed in foster care, or with a relative (if one is suitable and willing). I think the child can be returned to the parents later on, if the parents can show they are now capable of (and likely to) provide proper care for the child. > > The general consensus (here in the US) is that anybody that disconnected from reality (like the OP described) is not fit to be a parent, and the child’s welfare takes precedence over the parents spiritual beliefs. A child need not be taken out of the home and put into foster care, however. Sometimes a judge will appoint a person to be the medical decision maker for the child when the parent is otherwise doing an acceptable job and isn’t considered likely to run away with the kid (which has also happened.) Hospital procedure is generally that when a parent refuses something a doctor deems medically necessary (not just “a good idea” but “only an idiot would refuse this”) - including discharge Against Medical Advice - a hospital social worker and/or medical ethicist on staff is called and they will work with the doctor(s) and nurse(s) to determine if a judge needs to be called. Most hospital groups literally have a judge on speed dial. I actually ran into this myself once when I took my daughter to an ER at a regular hospital, rather than a pediatric hospital. It turned out they didn’t have any appropriate staff on duty or pediatric equipment, and their plan of treatment was to give her breathing treatments and oxygen. There were several serious errors in diagnosis and treatment made as well. They wouldn’t let us stay with her overnight (she was 5). I was one pissed off mama, and told them I would take her home, where I have oxygen and breathing treatments with the correct kind of mask. I was told in no uncertain terms that this was Not Going To Happen, and any attempt to remove her AMA was going to result in that nice security guard over there not being so nice anymore, and I’d be arrested while they got the whole thing sorted out with a judge, which would take a couple of days anyhow. One medical ethicist lecturing my nursing class told us that, in his experience, Jehovah’s Witness parents “want” to be “forced” to accept blood products for their children - if they say yes, they will be disfellowshipped (kicked out of their church and shunned by their community), but if they say no and the doctor gets approval from a court appointed medical guardian instead, the parent is off the hook, religiously and socially. The kid is more likely to survive, and then the parent gets sympathy and support from their fellows, instead of ostracization. I’m not sure I entirely believe it in all cases, but I can follow the logic and see where it may apply to other religions/subcultures. ---
**Author:** ![smithsb](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smithsb/32/12107_2.png) [@smithsb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smithsb)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2012, 1:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-the-us-can-a-woo-beleving-mum-be-forced-to-permit-life-saving-treatment-to-her-kid/644713/9 "2012-12-21T13:50:32Z")
Google - diabetes deaths parental neglect and you’ll get cases where charges of neglect and murder were pursued. Diabetes type I (childhood) is a common factor in these “woo” treatment/lack of care cases. ---
**Author:** ![njtt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ecd19e/32.png) [@njtt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/njtt)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2012, 2:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-the-us-can-a-woo-beleving-mum-be-forced-to-permit-life-saving-treatment-to-her-kid/644713/10 "2012-12-21T14:37:31Z")
> [@WhyNot](#): > > I actually ran into this myself once when I took my daughter to an ER at a regular hospital, rather than a pediatric hospital. It turned out they didn’t have any appropriate staff on duty or pediatric equipment, and their plan of treatment was to give her breathing treatments and oxygen. There were several serious errors in diagnosis and treatment made as well. They wouldn’t let us stay with her overnight (she was 5). I was one pissed off mama, and told them I would take her home, where I have oxygen and breathing treatments with the correct kind of mask. I was told in no uncertain terms that this was Not Going To Happen, and any attempt to remove her AMA was going to result in that nice security guard over there not being so nice anymore, and I’d be arrested while they got the whole thing sorted out with a judge, which would take a couple of days anyhow. That sounds nasty. ☹ What happened? Was she OK? ---
**Author:** ![casdave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c6cbf5/32.png) [@casdave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/casdave)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2012, 2:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-the-us-can-a-woo-beleving-mum-be-forced-to-permit-life-saving-treatment-to-her-kid/644713/11 "2012-12-21T14:51:12Z")
This case in the UK is legally simplified to some extent because the father of the child does support the decisions of the medical staff, so in effect it is not one of belief systems but one of responsible parental consent. Had this been strictly about belief systems this could have been much more difficult. Medical professionals do have to accept there is some validity to the mothers reservations about radiotherapy in such a young child as there is a significant chance of some lasting changes to cognitive development. She may get her way on this issue, even if she has faulty reasoning because there is a genuine medical argument regarding this second phase of treatment. ---
**Author:** ![md2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/73ab20/32.png) [@md2000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/md2000)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2012, 3:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-the-us-can-a-woo-beleving-mum-be-forced-to-permit-life-saving-treatment-to-her-kid/644713/12 "2012-12-21T15:07:30Z")
I thought this issue was settled 30 or 40 years ago over Jehovah’s Witness parents and blood transfusions. The state can intervene if the doctors think the life is in danger, but IIRC there was at least one case where an older child (15?) insisted on their right to decide for themselves. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2012, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-the-us-can-a-woo-beleving-mum-be-forced-to-permit-life-saving-treatment-to-her-kid/644713/13 "2012-12-21T15:30:44Z")
Children approaching the age of majority are often deemed “mature minors” for medical treatment purposes and granted an independent right to refuse medical care. > [@Simple\_Linctus](#): > > So what’s the procedure in the US if something like this happens? Do parents/guardians have “ownership” of their kids to the extent they can basically force them to die by refusing medical treatment? Or would the courts step in like here? Parents in the US have a broadly recognized fundamental right to direct the upbringing of their children, which includes the right to direct their medical care. However, the state has a compelling interest, as _parens patriae_, in protecting children. Adults have the right to martyr themselves, but not their children. As **solosam** notes, this balance results in different application of the law in different states. There’s no Supreme Court decision directly on point. Probably the closest thing we have is PJ _ex rel_ Jensen v. Wagner, a Tenth Circuit case, which sets out the majority view: parents may refuse non-emergency treatment, but may not refuse lifesaving treatment. There’s no consensus at all on whether parents may refuse emergency non-lifesaving treatment (say, setting a broken arm, or something). > [@](#): > > We begin by acknowledging that the Due Process Clause generally provides constitutional protection for parental rights. Indeed, the Supreme Court has stated that “the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects the fundamental right of parents to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children.” Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 66, 120 S.Ct. 2054, 147 L.Ed.2d 49 (2000). Furthermore, although we have never specifically recognized or defined the scope of a parent’s right to direct her child’s medical care, see Roska v. Peterson, 328 F.3d 1230, 1247 n. 14 (10th Cir.2003) (“We express no opinion on whether such a right [to direct a child’s medical care] might exist within the context of general familial rights.”), we do not doubt that a parent’s general right to make decisions concerning the care of her child includes, to some extent, a more specific right to make decisions about the child’s medical care. See Dubbs v. Head Start, Inc., 336 F.3d 1194, 1203 (10th Cir.2003) (“It is not implausible to think that rights invoked here—the right to refuse a medical exam and the parent’s right to control the upbringing, including the medical care, of a child—fall within [the Due Process Clause’s] sphere of protected liberty.”).The Supreme Court has similarly alluded to, but never specifically defined the scope of a parent’s right to direct her child’s medical care. Indeed, the Court has recognized that “[m]ost children, even in adolescence, simply are not able to make sound judgments concerning … their need for medical care or treatment,” Parham v. J.R., 442 U.S. 584, 603, 99 S.Ct. 2493, 61 L.Ed.2d 101 (1979), and that our legal system presumes “that natural bonds of affection lead parents to act in the best interests of their children.” Id. at 602., 99 S.Ct. 2493 Therefore, this precedent reasonably suggests that the Due Process Clause provides some level of protection for parents’ decisions regarding their children’s medical care.20 The Supreme Court has long recognized, however, that parental rights, including any right to direct a child’s medical care, are not absolute. See Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 166, 64 S.Ct. 438, 88 L.Ed. 645 (1944) (“[N]either rights of religion nor rights of parenthood are beyond limitation.”); see also Parham, 442 U.S. at 604, 99 S.Ct. 2493 (“[P]arents cannot always have absolute and unreviewable discretion to decide whether to [seek specific medical care for their children],” but they “retain plenary authority to seek such care for their children, subject to a physician’s independent examination and medical judgment.”). Indeed, states have a compelling interest in and a solemn duty to protect the lives and health of the children within their borders. See, e.g., Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court for Norfolk County, 457 U.S. 596, 607, 102 S.Ct. 2613, 73 L.Ed.2d 248 (1982) (“[S]afeguarding the physical and psychological well-being of a minor … is a compelling [interest].”). Accordingly, when a child’s life or health is endangered by her parents’ decisions, in some circumstances a state may intervene without violating the parents’ constitutional rights. See Parham, 442 U.S. at 603, 99 S.Ct. 2493 (“[W]e have recognized that a state is not without constitutional control over parental discretion in dealing with children when their physical or mental health is jeopardized.”).Under this constitutional framework, **we conclude that the Jensens’ asserted right to direct P.J.'s medical care in this case is not clearly established**. The record demonstrates that no less than seven qualified and competent doctors evaluated P.J., diagnosed him with life-threatening cancer, and recommended that he immediately undergo chemotherapy treatment in order to save his life. In this particular situation, the Jensens did not have a clearly established constitutional right to refuse the unanimous recommended treatment or to solicit additional opinions until they found a doctor who disagreed that conventional treatment was necessary. Indeed, the Jensens had a “ ‘high duty’ to recognize symptoms of illness and to seek and follow medical advice.” Id. at 602., 99 S.Ct. 2493. > > PJ ex rel. Jensen v. Wagner, 603 F.3d 1182, 1197-98 (10th Cir. 2010) The classic case is Jehovah’s Witness parents refusing blood transfusions. The same rationale is almost exclusively followed: kid’s gonna die? He gets a tranfusion. Otherwise, no. The only distinction appears to be where the transfusion is necessary to perform some other type of treatment which itself has a low likelihood of success. > [@](#): > > …the same result had been reached in People ex rel. Wallace v Labrenz (1952) 411 Ill 618, 104 NE2d 769, 30 ALR2d 1132, cert den 344 US 824, 97 L Ed 642, 73 S Ct 24 (this subsection), the court in Jehovah’s Witnesses of Washington v King County Hospital (1967, DC Wash) 278 F Supp 488, affd 390 US 598, 20 L Ed 2d 158, 88 S Ct 1260, reh den 391 US 961, 20 L Ed 2d 874, 88 S Ct 1844, applied the rationale in Prince v Massachusetts (1944) 321 US 158, 88 L Ed 645, 64 S Ct 438, 7 CCH LC ¶51172, reh den 321 US 804, 88 L Ed 1090, 64 S Ct 784, § 2[a], in holding that the free exercise rights of several Jehovah’s Witness parents were not violated when, in pursuance of a state statute authorizing court–ordered medical treatment for neglected children (Wash Rev Code § 13.04.010(12)), blood transfusions deemed by each of the attending physicians as vital to the preservation of life were ordered and performed upon the children of the Witnesses without parental consent. Denying a petition, on behalf of all Jehovah’s Witnesses in the state, seeking to enjoin future enforcement of the statute with respect to any resident member of their religious sect, the District Court stated that while it is true that the Prince Case was not intended to lay the foundation for every government intervention in religious indoctrination of children, which intervention the state views as beneficial to their health and welfare, the rationale of that case was applicable to the instant case. The court added that neither case actually involved interference with the parental right to train a child in religious matters, and that the instant case was an example of circumstances where the exercise of religious freedom by parents would expose their children to “ill health or death.” > > 21 A.L.R.5th 248 (Originally published in 1994) ---
**Author:** ![Tom\_Tildrum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e95f7d/32.png) [@Tom\_Tildrum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tom_Tildrum)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2012, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-the-us-can-a-woo-beleving-mum-be-forced-to-permit-life-saving-treatment-to-her-kid/644713/14 "2012-12-21T15:30:55Z")
[Christine Maggiore](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christine_Maggiore), a Duesberg follower and HIV denialist, transmitted the virus to her daughter, [Eliza Jane Scovill](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliza_Jane_Scovill), because she refused to take any precautions against mother-to-child transmission, such as taking ARV drugs and not breastfeeding. Scovill died at age three of AIDS-related conditions. Charges of abuse and neglect were considered against Maggiore but never pursued. Scovill’s pediatrician was stripped of his license for a few years for failing to test Scovill for HIV and other gross failures of care. Maggiore herself dies of AIDS-related conditions three years later. ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2012, 3:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-the-us-can-a-woo-beleving-mum-be-forced-to-permit-life-saving-treatment-to-her-kid/644713/15 "2012-12-21T15:50:20Z")
Thread title edited to add missing word. ---
**Author:** ![Tom\_Tildrum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e95f7d/32.png) [@Tom\_Tildrum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tom_Tildrum)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2012, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-the-us-can-a-woo-beleving-mum-be-forced-to-permit-life-saving-treatment-to-her-kid/644713/16 "2012-12-21T15:55:14Z")
> [@Colibri](#): > > Thread title edited to add missing word. So, mum’s the word? ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2012, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-the-us-can-a-woo-beleving-mum-be-forced-to-permit-life-saving-treatment-to-her-kid/644713/17 "2012-12-21T16:14:02Z")
Ouch. ---
**Author:** ![dstarfire](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dstarfire/32/5762_2.png) [@dstarfire](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dstarfire)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2012, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-the-us-can-a-woo-beleving-mum-be-forced-to-permit-life-saving-treatment-to-her-kid/644713/18 "2012-12-21T20:00:42Z")
Actually, “parent” would be a better word. or whatever the british colloquial equivalent is. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2012, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-the-us-can-a-woo-beleving-mum-be-forced-to-permit-life-saving-treatment-to-her-kid/644713/19 "2012-12-21T20:08:44Z")
“Parent”. ---
**Author:** ![moriah](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b2d939/32.png) [@moriah](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/moriah)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2012, 1:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-the-us-can-a-woo-beleving-mum-be-forced-to-permit-life-saving-treatment-to-her-kid/644713/20 "2012-12-22T01:09:45Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Parents in the US have a broadly recognized fundamental right to direct the upbringing of their children, which includes the right to direct their medical care. > > However, the state has a compelling interest, as _parens patriae_, in protecting children. Adults have the right to martyr themselves, but not their children. Adults can martyr themselves… up to a point. If a person is clearly endangering themselves (threatening to jump off a bridge, threatening to commit suicide, etc…), then the state can ‘interfere.’ And ‘interfere’ is in quotes because, as I understand it, all human beings are technically wards of the state. The state is our true and legal guardian. That’s why the state can protect us from others who want to harm us, the state is our guardian. The state can determine that all children be immunized or receive a basic education, because they’re the guardian. Normally, adults are left to their own recognizance and parents are left to be the acting guardians of their children… until such time that they endanger themselves or others, then the state steps in. The constitution does limit how much the state should and can exert its guardianship so that we have as much freedom as possible… up to a point. Consider the Terry Shiavo case where the husband OK’d the removal of extraordinary means of life support for his wife who was in a vegetative state. You would think that the husband would be the primary guardian of his wife who can’t speak for herself. Yes… up to a point. Her relatives contested the decision of the husband, and so the court had to decide who would speak for her since she had no end-of-life directives of her own. The state decided who would they would delegate to be her guardian since the state has the first prerogative to be guardian. If all her relatives abrogated the decision, then the state would have appointed a panel to decide. Thus, it’s really important to have wills and end-of-life directives and have trusted powers of attorney spelled out… else a judge acting on behalf of the state will make those decisions you’d want loved ones to make for you (especially if certain loved ones fight with each other over who gets to make those decisions). BTW, don’t tell any of this to any ultra right-wing libertarians you know… their heads will explode. 😃 [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-the-us-can-a-woo-beleving-mum-be-forced-to-permit-life-saving-treatment-to-her-kid/644713.md?page=2)