I see no problem here. It's a human interest story that links into an important and topical issue, namely the destructive anti-vaccine movement and the ongoing damage it is causing to society.

And this is the result without vaccines: https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/03/boy-spent-47-agonizing-days-in-icu-with-tetanus-parents-still-refuse-vaccines/

Seriously, can they not get charged with endangerment of the child for that? At least they got an appropriate bill to pay for that (take a deep breath first if you want to read the spoiler): 811.929$ plus the charges for the air transportation and rehab.

And yet, they still refuse to vaccine their children. Not even being ruined by their idiocy does seem to change their mind, disgusting.

You get the concept of case studies, right? That's basically what this is. It's an example used to raise debate about a "contentious" issue.

The basic point isn't that he is an adult and chose to defy his parents to get vaccinated. It's that he had to wait until he was 18 before he legally could. When all scientific evidence is on the side of the child, should the parent be able to legally forbid their child from getting vaccinated? This is just a single case used to highlight a phenomena that is likely happening to a number of people and against a backdrop of preventable disease outbreaks.

Out of all the stupidity and falsehoods in journalism at the moment, highlighting this is just bizarre.