Where is the line for parental rights drawn?
Nobody should want the state to try to usurp parents, but when those parents refuse medical care for their children in a way that will almost certainly lead to death, then there's undoubtedly a compelling interest for someone to step in to protect the child. In the case of the Minnesota boy who was being kept from chemotherapy, the difference was a 5% chance of survival without treatment and a 95% chance of survival with treatment. The intriguing question is where the cutoff is for state interference: Is it a 50-50 shot at survival? Is it where the parents' course of action is 10% less likely to result in survival than what the doctors recommend? 20%? 30%?
Soaking the rich: Good for populist vote-grabbing, but bad for budget-balancing
Open-heart surgery is only a 57-year-old concept
Which means that many of the Baby Boomers who will get the surgery are actually older than the procedure itself. Which in turn gets really mind-blowing when one realizes that fully-functional bio-engineered hearts are quite likely only a few years away. Another scary thought for the books.
The root cause of last summer's flooding in Iowa