I almost forgot to post my update on the case where the 13-year-old boy and his mom were refusing medical treatment. I no longer have the link, but I saw a day or so later that they had returned to town and were accepting chemo. Crisis averted.
The article also noted that the boy's chances of survival with chemo were 90 percent, but only 5 percent without chemo. You'll remember (I hope) that I only agreed with his and his mom's actions if there wasn't going to be much difference in his chances if he went through the chemo; I don't see why anyone should be forced to go through a painful treatment if it's not very likely to help. Clearly, though, this was not the case here — so yeah, refusing chemo when it makes him 18 times more likely to live is pretty neglectful of a parent.
I still am somewhat uncomfortable with the government intervening in cases where the treatment has dubious benefits, though.