Emily
Emily
Aug 8, 2017 · 2 min read

Thank you for this clear explanation.

I wonder if a bit of the response of the American right comes from a misunderstanding of vocabulary. They hear “there was no treatment” and think “the child was allowed no treatment.” Those aren’t the same thing, and they turn on the definition of the word “treatment.”

You are using “treatment” in its most specific sense: a direct response to a medical problem that is designed to cure or relieve symptoms of that problem. Like “antibiotics are a treatment for an infection.”

They are using “treatment” as a catch all “something is being done to try to stop the progression of/ symptoms of/ or cure the disease.” “Treatment” is a vague category including any and everything that could be done. So “he’s getting treatment [being cared for by medical staff in the broadest sense] for cancer.”

If you are meant to hear the first, but hear the second, then “there was no treatment” becomes horrific. How could someone not even try?!? If you read it the way it is used (by you and others), it becomes “there was nothing available with a chance to cure this.” Then the case and the questions, while still amazingly painful, make a lot more sense logically, ethically, etc.

And, as a side note, the people screaming loudest about this in the US subscribe to a version of Christianity that demands that parents shield their children from anything contradictory to their religion AND that parents beat their kids to keep them safe from going to Hell. Of course they see this as a “parents’ rights” issue. They think the gov’t is bad for taking away their kids when they refuse to teach them to read or (nearly) beat them to death. They view kids as property. Such a relationship does have biblical support. By no means are ALL Christians like this, but this idea of “gov’t BAD! parents GOD-LIKE!” manifests in far more subtle and damaging ways than just what’s going on here.

    Emily

    Written by

    Emily

    prof, writer, hockey fan, cat owner.