[Clodfobble]

I can't possibly weigh the merits of either side without understanding the injury itself. My understanding is that a spine injury is generally treated with physical and occupational therapy, and there isn't much more you can do for it from a medical standpoint. Maybe the doctors want to try some kind of surgery to reattach something, and she and the kid don't think it's worth the pain/risk?

Like glatt said, without more details about what the doctors want to do and what the mom wants to do, I have to give the judge the benefit of the doubt. It sounds more like she wanted to do something iffy, since his ruling was that she could not "treat" him herself with whatever it was she wanted to do, but she also didn't have to take the doctors' offered treatment either. For him to rule against a treatment entirely means it's probably beyond even fringe-accepted things like acupuncture and such.


Edit: I just figured out a way to view the whole article without a registration. Kid is improving on his own after a "bruised" spine which left him briefly paralyzed, but he is regaining movement. Doctors want to give the kid steroids to clear up inflammation, and do neck surgery to insert metal rods which could prevent possible further damage, in case he falls or whatever during this precarious healing time. Mom wants to use herbs to reduce the inflammation and physical therapy to regain his strength.

This makes me want to side with the mom, but again, the article mentions previous child endangerment charges that had been dropped, so there's obviously still more going on here.