Reading between the lines.

I just ran across this news article. The up shot of it is that a 13 year old kid in Minnesota who is suffering from Hodgkin's lymphoma, attempted to refuse traditional treatment for it (possibly for religious reasons) apparently with the approval of his mother. Somehow it ended up with a court ruling that he could not refuse treatment because his doctors said he will die without it. After that,he and his mother fled for Mexico.

Now the fleeing the country bit might be illegal depending on the custody situations but who cares. The biggest piece of the story in my opinion is that a court decided that it has the authority to overrule someone on what happens to there own body! (and this is barely even mentioned until halfway down the page)

Now I'll grant that there might be more to it, for instance; dad says, do the treatment, mom says do what the kid wants and the court goes with dad. Even if that is true, from the way it's written it seem that the court ruled based on what it thought was best for the kid, not based on who it thought should decide. And from the way it's written, it seems the author this that is just fine.