Compare Makayla Sault's Arguments In The Legal System

Lenient sentencing, religious accommodations, and major biases in the legal system all prevent the rule of law from being upheld when it comes to prosecuting parents who withhold access to medical care from their children. Lenient sentencing puts rights of the parents over the rights of the child, which takes away the rights of the child. For example, in the Criminal Code of Canada, homicide is defined as “A person commits homicide when, directly or indirectly, by any means, he causes the death of a human being”, it goes further and states “Where a person, by an act or omission, does anything that results in the death of a human being, he causes the death of that human being notwithstanding that death from that cause might have been prevented
The courts signed her death certificate when they did not step in and prevent her death. They decided that the parents had a greater right to practice their religion, than young Makayla had to life. This is a clear opposition to the rule of law, as Makayla's right to life was stolen from her. Religious objections to medical care are often accepted; contrastingly, objections motivated by other beliefs are seen as unfit. Compare Makayla Sault's case with the following: a 3 year old who was diagnosed with Hodgkin's Lymphoma. His parents wanted to use metabolic therapy, laetrile, to cure the cancer, as they felt chemotherapy would diminish the child's quality of life, and was too aggressive for the toddler. However the courts took away the child and forced chemotherapy on him (Black, 2010). This stark contrast in judgments clearly shows a bias in the court system. The rule of law states that all laws apply equally to everyone, so if the legal system is going to prosecute parents and guardians who choose to pursue alternate measures of healing, there should be no distinction or discrepancy between whom the courts decide to