The article, I suggest you read it before my rant.
I can see where the justice system is coming from on this one, but I still have to disagree with the decision. Yes, the parents could have taken the child to the emergency room and had it treated. Yes, the emergency room would have treated the child and billed them later. That seems to be obvious to everyone including the journalist who wrote the article.
However, I doubt the journalist has had to deal with bad credit, a shitty job, less money coming in than going out, and creditors calling every day. I imagine there were times these parents were more worried about their child not having food than they were about him possibly having cancer.
The priorities of the poor are staggered a little differently than the middle class and above. We have medical care very near the bottom of that list. For us, medical care isn't some wonderful miracle that heals all. It's a way to drag ourselves deeper in debt. It's a way to have some bullshit nurse look down on you because you don't have insurance while you wait for an overpaid doctor to do as little as possible and give you some pill he can be compensated for.
In fact, let's assume they had taken him to the emergency room. According to the doctor in the last paragraph of the article, "If they had just taken the child to the emergency room and said the child is sick, the staff would have taken care of the child ... Their approach is 'we figure out how to get paid later'". That is the biggest load of horse shit I have ever heard. They have to stabilize the child. If they had taken him into the hospital they'd have assumed he had a mild infection or tonsillitis or something. He'd leave there with an anti-biotic and a note saying come back in for a check-up. That check-up wouldn't be an emergency room visit and without insurance or money, they'd turn the family away.
So in conclusion, fuck anybody who thinks this was easily prevented.