Cognitive dissonance

The courts want to force a 16-year old cancer patient to take more chemotherapy and radiation treatments:

"I would rather die healthy and strong and in my house than die in a hospital bed, bedridden and unable to even open my eyes," said Abraham, who was so weakened by three months of chemotherapy last year that at times he could barely walk.
He refused a second round of chemotherapy when he learned early this year that his Hodgkin's disease, a cancer of the lymph nodes, was active again, choosing instead to go on a sugar-free, organic diet and take herbal supplements under the supervision of a clinic in Mexico. A social worker then asked a judge to require the teen to continue conventional treatment.
"I've got nothing to lose by what I'm doing," Abraham said. "I truly do believe that this (alternative treatment) is going to cure me."

The state's rationale: the teen's parents were neglectful for allowing their son to seek alternative treatment. Some ethicists to agree:

Parents don't always know what is medically best for their children, said Art Caplan, chairman of the Department of Medical Ethics and director of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania.
"At the end of the day, the government's obligation is to protect the interests of those not quite old enough yet to really make their own choices," Caplan said. "If this was a 25-year-old who said I didn't want to do this, there would be no case, no issue, no story."

On the other hand, the government apparently considers a 17-year old wise enough to decide to have an abortion with or without parental knowledge, advice or consent:

Second District Judges Stevan Northcutt and Carolyn Fulmer, who formed the majority opinion, wrote that the minor demonstrated sufficient maturity to choose whether to obtain the abortion without notifying her parents. Judge Charles Davis dissented, citing inadequate evidence showing that the minor considered alternative options and understood all of the risks of the procedure.

So... the implied Constitutional right to privacy permits a young unwed mother to destroy the life within her for the sake of convenience, but doesn't allow a young man to decide a treatment is worse than the disease for him? The only consistency between these two rulings is the idea that parents don't matter -- only the State is wise enough to tell you what you can do with weighty issues of life and death. As a parent myself, that's a frightening judicial assertion to behold.