[Sticks]

So which medical school did this father graduate from?

Look at it this way, a child is dying, so the parents want to try the latest thing they have read about in some magazine or off of that bastion of absolute and error free truth, the internet.

The parents then want to remove the child from a hospital where they are getting the best treatment the clinicians have devised to chase after some quack cure that they have half read about off of the internet, or some charlatan snake oil salesman is peddling.

The child is the patient and not the parent.

The doctor needs to protect the child from treatments that are unproven, will not work or even make the condition worse, even if that means protecting the child, from their own parents by use of the law.

Also they will also have in mind, other child patients, and if they allow one set of parents to discharge their child against medical advice to run after a quack treatment, then this will set a dangerous precedent putting more children at risk from well meaning parents wanting to try unproven quack treatments.

Even if the treatment is not in itself quackery and is used in one area, it may not be appropriate for another condition. Listening to the clinician last night on the radio news, proton beam therapy is not the right treatment for this child.

By not following medical advice, these parents are guilty of criminal child neglect, if not child endangerment.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Sticks

So which medical school did this father graduate from?

Look at it this way, a child is dying, so the parents want to try the latest thing they have read about in some magazine or off of that bastion of absolute and error free truth, the internet.

The parents then want to remove the child from a hospital where they are getting the best treatment the clinicians have devised to chase after some quack cure that they have half read about off of the internet, or some charlatan snake oil salesman is peddling.

The child is the patient and not the parent.

The doctor needs to protect the child from treatments that are unproven, will not work or even make the condition worse, even if that means protecting the child, from their own parents by use of the law.

Also they will also have in mind, other child patients, and if they allow one set of parents to discharge their child against medical advice to run after a quack treatment, then this will set a dangerous precedent putting more children at risk from well meaning parents wanting to try unproven quack treatments.

Even if the treatment is not in itself quackery and is used in one area, it may not be appropriate for another condition. Listening to the clinician last night on the radio news, proton beam therapy is not the right treatment for this child.

By not following medical advice, these parents are guilty of criminal child neglect, if not child endangerment.

Blind conformity to the nanny state, succinctly defined in one post.

[lily.]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Blind conformity to the nanny state, succinctly defined in one post.