Daily there are drug abusers, especially alcoholics, recovered from the gutter by ambulances who are given treatment aimed at restoring them to the complete health and wellbeing.

With very rare exceptions (and medical people may struggle to list an exception), despite the expensive, unrelenting efforts of medical and other professionals and helping organisations, the drug-addicted return to their previous choices and lifestyle regardless.

While we are on the ethics of refusing treatment for the child minor with cancer, what should be the flow-on to health policy?

Hi Foxy, I believe the doctors made the right decision for this boy. A 50% chance of survival is pretty good odds, and who knows what other treatments may become available in a few years time if the boy is still alive then?

I would suggest that the vast majority of parents would make the decision to give their child every chance at life, and if the doctors felt so strongly about going to court to get an order to force the parents to allow their child to have treatment, then they obviously thought there was a reasonable chance of survival, and a reasonable life.

Most paediatric and oncology doctors wouldn't go through the extreme trauma of taking on the parents in court over something as awful as this if they weren't feeling fairly confident they were doing the right thing.

Adults can make their own decisions that we may not always agree with, but kids need extra protection at times. I remember being very angry and upset with a Jehovah's Witness family years ago, who were willing to sit and watch their young daughter die from blood loss after a terrible car accident , rather than allowing her to have a blood transfusion. All the medical staff had to really control their own emotions when dealing with this family, even after the daughter was made a ward of the State while she was given the blood transfusion.

The family were then certain this little girl would be going to hell for having this lifesaving transfusion. I was certain that if there was a hell, then only the parents would be going there!
It was very difficult at the time, but we were so pleased the Government stepped in and made the correct decision.

P&F,

I lost my father a while ago through emphysema (from smoking) which took a decade slowly whittling away his quality of life, and even though in your head you know that at the end death is a merciful release, nothing prepares you for the loss you feel at the time.

P,

Despite our robust discussions, I wish you peace through what I know will be painful and heart breaking, but hopefully with moments of of love and memories.

I have two adult children now, but I still remember them as babies, and waking up terrified that something could happen to them. I had to cure my terrors with a fix of holding them before I could sleep again, so I also know that one's love of a child has even greater depths.

I don't know enough to be able to judge the parents' decision, but I know that it must soul destroying, and while I understand the doctor's duty to protect life, I believe the hippocratic oath should include the respect for the quality of life.

Dear Suse, Shadow Minister, and OTB,

I agree with you both. I think many parents would opt
for life - if it was an available option. However
the quality of life as Shadow Minister states should
also be a consideration. Apparently the doctor at the
Perth hospital felt strongly about the matter to take
a court action against the parents.

Very difficult to judge this case though.

I've just learned that this case will be aired on
"Sixty Minutes," on Channel 9, this Sunday (10th April 2016)
at 8.15pm.

Should be worth watching.

Pity no outrage about the 1000's murderer unborn babies. Very selective rage.

Dear runner,

Kindly provide us with evidence to substantiate
your claim of "thousands murdered unborns,"
better still, start your own discussion on your
topic. Do not divert mine. You seem to be the
selective one here.