Reply #42: I completely agree that parents almost always have the best of intentions towards their children;

[struggle4progress]

I will agree that in almost every case, the parents are the appropriate decision makers; and I would think that in cases where treatment was of questionable value or unlikely to prolong the life of the child or likely to reduce the quality and enjoyment of the child's remaining life, the parents rather than a court should make the call. If parents choose not to treat serious illnesses which are usually nonfatal and from which a full recovery is common, except by mild methods such as bedrest and fluids, it seems to me that I should generally not second-guess them, even if such illnesses sometimes are fatal or sometimes lead to serious long-term consequences

All that said, I cannot agree with your view that there is never a state interest in a child's medical care. There are a number of conditions under which prognosis may be poor without treatment and excellent with treatment, and in such cases the parents' ignorance or nonstandard views should be ignored in favor of the child's health: if a child incurs a deep puncture wound, or is bitten by a rabid dog, for example, I should think the state may reasonably insist on a tetanus vaccination or rabies series, regardless of the views of the parents. The case at hand appears to provide an example of such a situation, and a judge appropriately ordered treatment. Of course, you are entirely correct that there will be grey areas -- but that does not mean state intervention is never appropriate