Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Kosh on May 15, 2009, 07:54:03 pm
-
The model of irresponsible parenting (http://www.physorg.com/news161583468.html)
In a 58-page ruling, Brown County District Judge John Rodenberg found that Daniel Hauser has been "medically neglected" by his parents, Colleen and Anthony Hauser, and was in need of child protection services.
While he allowed Daniel to stay with his parents, the judge gave the Hausers until Tuesday to get an updated chest X-ray for their son and select an oncologist.
If the evaluation shows the cancer had advanced to a point where chemotherapy and radiation would no longer help, the judge said, he would not order the boy to undergo treatment.
The judge wrote that Daniel has only a "rudimentary understanding at best of the risks and benefits of chemotherapy. ... he does not believe he is ill currently. The fact is that he is very ill currently."
Daniel's court-appointed attorney, Philip Elbert, called the decision unfortunate.
"I feel it's a blow to families," he said. "It marginalizes the decisions that parents face every day in regard to their children's medical care. It really affirms the role that big government is better at making our decisions for us."
Elbert said he hadn't spoken to his client yet. The phone line at the Hauser home in Sleepy Eye in southwestern Minnesota had a busy signal Friday. The parents' attorney had no immediate comment but planned to issue a statement.
Daniel was diagnosed with Hodgkin's lymphoma and stopped chemotherapy in February after a single treatment. He and his parents opted instead for "alternative medicines" based on their religious beliefs.
Child protection workers accused Daniel's parents of medical neglect; but in court, his mother insisted the boy wouldn't submit to chemotherapy for religious reasons and she said she wouldn't comply if the court orders it.
Doctors have said Daniel's cancer had up to a 90 percent chance of being cured with chemotherapy and radiation. Without those treatments, doctors said his chances of survival are 5 percent.
If the parents decided to do this to themselves, that's fine. But to endanger someone elses life, especially their child's is just wrong.
EDIT: And since the child is only 13, he isn't capable of making such a decision on his own.
-
Daniel was diagnosed with Hodgkin's lymphoma and stopped chemotherapy in February after a single treatment. He and his parents opted instead for "alternative medicines" based on their religious beliefs.
That's some pretty shoddy beliefs.
-
How can you possibly justify a decision that reduces the chances of your child's recovery from 90% to 5% as anything except gross medical neglect?
-
How can you possibly justify a decision that reduces the chances of your child's recovery from 90% to 5% as anything except gross medical neglect?
Religion.
-
This reminds me of a case here in Baltimore that happened just recently that sorta reminds me of it. It's not the same, but whatever.
"The group moved from East to West Baltimore, where police said Javon died after being starved for refusing to say "Amen" after meals. After the boy died, police said in court documents, the group prayed over the body for two days, then swaddled it in sheets and stowed it in a green suitcase."
Your religious beliefs don't get to include child endangerment.
I'm just flabbergasted these people sent their kid to chemo one time and then said "hey wait, this is against our religion"
-
That makes me so unimaginably angry. There's a line between religion and Real Life. Once religion begins to put someone's life in danger for no ****ing good reason, that's what pisses me off.
-
Now this would make an interesting case for precedent.
Kid has life-threatening disease. Disease is curable, but only through procedure that causes immense pain and suffering. Parents can't bear to see that, kid doesn't want it. However, kid will likely die otherwise. Parents believe there is another way, though significantly more risky. Parents are legal guardians of kid.
Does Gov. have the legal (or moral) right to tell parents what to do?
Don't get confused. This really isn't about religion, its about the integrity and sovereignty of parental guardianship.
How can you possibly justify a decision that reduces the chances of your child's recovery from 90% to 5% as anything except gross medical neglect?
Religion.
Wrong.
If you've known anyone who's had cancer and gone through chemo, you know its an incredibly ****ty experience, often worse than cancer itself. Project that onto your child, a 13-year old no less, and the choice to watch him go through that isn't so easy. Of course, neither is losing him to cancer. But if there were a chance that you could save him some other way, you might think twice.
While the article paints whatever faith the family shares in spirituality and alternative medicine as rather crude and useless against his condition, it still remains an ultimately awkward position, for lack of a better phrase. Chemo ain't like getting a shot in the arm. For a state judge to say that the family isn't allowed to pursue their own people's version of a cure for him again, sets a weird precedent that the state's legal authority supersedes that of parent's (of varying peoples, religions and creeds) in day-to-day life.
-
Does Gov. have the legal (or moral) right to tell parents what to do?
Don't get confused. This really isn't about religion, its about the integrity and sovereignty of parental guardianship.
Wow, I agree with KT...
This is essentially it. Ultimately, is the child the ward of his parents, or the ward of the state? And keep in mind that government is far less likely than a parent to be personally invested in a kid's well being.
From what I heard, a relative of this family also went through chemotherapy and died despite (or perhaps because of) it. So there's that to consider also.
-
Does Gov. have the legal (or moral) right to tell parents what to do?
Don't get confused. This really isn't about religion, its about the integrity and sovereignty of parental guardianship.
Wow, I agree with KT...
Don't worry man, it happens to the best of us.
-
So whats the result then? Do parents get to decide what to do to their kids, even if it hurts them?
-
So whats the result then? Do parents get to decide what to do to their kids, even if it hurts them?
Unfortunately, its that simple, but more complicated, at the same time.
As a parent, you're obligated to do what you think is best for your child. This usually entails loving, caring for, and protecting them. In this case, he has cancer. He could die from it, he might not. Chemo could save him, it also could not (note the fact: Chemo is a highly undesirable process in itself.) There are no guarantees in this situation.
There are no "results" thus far, except for that neither the kids nor the parents liked going through Chemo. For Chemo to produce such a negative reaction in the both of them, and yet to have a judge step in and say "tough ****, suck it up the both of you" isn't really right.
-
What if the kid had tetanus and the parents decided to pray instead of taking the kid to a doctor?
It's neglect, plain and simple. The parents are responsible for keeping the child healthy and alive. If they fail to do so, it's neglect.
-
What if the kid had tetanus and the parents decided to pray instead of taking the kid to a doctor?
It's neglect, plain and simple. The parents are responsible for keeping the child healthy and alive. If they fail to do so, it's neglect.
That was an amazing analogy. Because tetanus treatment is hella life-threatening.
-
If you've known anyone who's had cancer and gone through chemo, you know its an incredibly ****ty experience, often worse than cancer itself.
Well, my best friend had cancer and chemo, and it was, well, unimpressive?
He was completely fine with it, didn't lose hair, didn't have to stay in the hospital.
Of course, it always depends on the type of cancer, but the "If you've known anyone..." part isn't correct :>
The idea of the chemo therapy is to poison the body, cancerous cells grow faster, take in more poison, and die faster than the rest of the body. Obviously, that will be dangerous (and certain types of cancer can hardly be treated like this)
But it's still better than a(n almost) guaranteed death due to the cancer itself.
For me, allowing parents to refuse such a treatment for their child is quite similar to allowing the parents to shoot their child.
Btw, am I mistaken or are the people who would forbid people to have an abortion the same as those who would allow the parents to be responsible for the death of the child in this case..?
-
If you've known anyone who's had cancer and gone through chemo, you know its an incredibly ****ty experience, often worse than cancer itself.
For me, allowing parents to refuse such a treatment for their child is quite similar to allowing the parents to shoot their child.
That's the thing though - it's not your call. It shouldn't really be the judge's either. He's a judge, yes. But he's not the child's parent. And as you already pointed out - every chemo case is different. That only means that every case should be considered case by case. In this case, the parents are the ones responsible for making the choice.
Btw, am I mistaken or are the people who would forbid people to have an abortion the same as those who would allow the parents to be responsible for the death of the child in this case..?
I don't know what this means, only that this isn't about abortion.
-
Blargh. Choosing not to give the kid chemo and severely reducing his chances of survival are, of course, foolish. The bigger issue here though, as has already been stated, is whether parents should have the right to make such bad decisions.
It irks me sometimes how much people here get off to religion-bashing. I acknowledge that plenty of bad has been done in the name of religion, but there's plenty of arguing to be done about state vs parent guardianship here. You've got like five other threads to argue religion.
-
That was an amazing analogy. Because tetanus treatment is hella life-threatening.
It's actually quite a good one. Chemo's extremely unpleasant (perhaps we should compare rabies shots instead?) but not terribly life-threatening either.
-
KT's actually right about religion on this one. Religion isn't the problem here. I don't think it's the reason why the parents are doing something phenomenally stupid. They took their child to have a session of chemo and then decided against it. That's not a religious objection then since if the objection was really on religious grounds they wouldn't have taken him at all.
What is actually going on apparently is that they decided to take him for treatment, decided not to go ahead with it and then claimed it was against their religion because they assumed that would give them a stronger argument then "Because we don't want to"
What is under discussion here is where a parent's rights over a child end. I doubt that there is anyone here who is going to argue that the state shouldn't step in when there is a case of neglect or abuse. The question is whether this qualifies.
So let's ignore religion, it's irrelevant to this argument really.
-
KT's actually right
QFT.
Note that aside from providing an alternate point of view, I haven't really taken a side. All I'm trying to point out is that it isn't always a clear decision on what's best for a loved one. On top of that, it sets a ****ing bad (if you like your individual rights) precedent if the judge tells the family they have to take their kid to Chemo. If the judge can rule that, you can set a legal precedent where Gov. decides how to best cure and treat your problems. This isn't even to mention medical costs to the family.
The real issue here is whether or not the parents are over (or under) stepping their bounds as legal guardians of the child by not taking him to chemo. I know you all hate religion. I don't care.
Should you be allowed to not take your children to chemo if they have cancer? THINGS TO CONSIDER: Chemo might not save them. Chemo sucks. You want to avoid prolonged suffering. You're sure that there are other medical treatments with less ill impact.
Should Gov. be allowed to tell parents how to treat parents? THINGS TO CONSIDER: First cancer, then any disease. First disease, then parenting - slippery slope. Who is Gov to tell you how to help your family if it goes against your personal beliefs?
And before anyone says so, nobody wants the kid to die. But I'm sure we can all mostly agree that medical treatment against him (or his parents') will is probably not the best way to save him.
-
Huh, I have to agree with KT on this one. Well said.
-
If you've known anyone who's had cancer and gone through chemo, you know its an incredibly ****ty experience, often worse than cancer itself.
Cancer == death if untreated. Hard to get worse than that.
But if there were a chance that you could save him some other way, you might think twice.
There isn't. Chemo and radiation therapy are pretty much the only thing that can treat it completely. The doctors did testify that the kid has only a 5% chance of survival without chemo, but with chemo the survival of 90% with chemo. Gee, I wonder which one I would choose, no matter how ****ty the experience might be. Maybe you would roll the dice with life threatening illness, but not all of us.
For a state judge to say that the family isn't allowed to pursue their own people's version of a cure for him again, sets a weird precedent that the state's legal authority supersedes that of parent's (of varying peoples, religions and creeds) in day-to-day life.
This isn't day to day life, this is a life threatening condition in which the parents are demonstrating blatant negligence. The parents stated they would seek "alternatives", well what alternatives are there? Everything I've read is still in development.
Should Gov. be allowed to tell parents how to treat parents? THINGS TO CONSIDER: First cancer, then any disease. First disease, then parenting - slippery slope.
Libertarian scare tactics. Children are not capable of independent thinking, and when the parents make choices that endanger them they should be called out for it. No one has problems if the kid was 23 instead of 13 and refused treatment.
Should you be allowed to not take your children to chemo if they have cancer? THINGS TO CONSIDER: Chemo might not save them. Chemo sucks. You want to avoid prolonged suffering. You're sure that there are other medical treatments with less ill impact.
things to consider, has whole life ahead of him, would have no chance at all without treatment. Even a 50-50 chance is better than nothing.
-
THINGS TO CONSIDER: Chemo might not save them. Chemo sucks. You want to avoid prolonged suffering. You're sure that there are other medical treatments with less ill impact.
Put bluntly, cancer is a ****ty way to die. You'll suffer greatly both with and without chemo/radiation/both. However, you might live through it if you're treated. This argument is moot.
Should Gov. be allowed to tell parents how to treat parents? THINGS TO CONSIDER: First cancer, then any disease. First disease, then parenting - slippery slope. Who is Gov to tell you how to help your family if it goes against your personal beliefs?
The slippery slope is usually considered an informal logical fallacy, as it argues on possible future consequences of dubious relevance and dubious likelyhood. This is an excellent demonstration why; from ordering a potentionally lifesaving treatment to ordering any treatment regardless of what's at stake to just ordering.
It doesn't sound reasonable. It isn't. To use an appropriate metaphor, stop blowing smoke.
But I'm sure we can all mostly agree that medical treatment against him (or his parents') will is probably not the best way to save him.
We can't, because it is the best way that we know of at this moment. You have a better medical alternative? Spit it out.
-
I should point out that I agree with KT on what the question is. I completely disagree with him on the way he is arguing about it. :p
Should Gov. be allowed to tell parents how to treat parents? THINGS TO CONSIDER: First cancer, then any disease. First disease, then parenting - slippery slope. Who is Gov to tell you how to help your family if it goes against your personal beliefs?
The slippery slope is usually considered an informal logical fallacy, as it argues on possible future consequences of dubious relevance and dubious likelyhood. This is an excellent demonstration why; from ordering a potentionally lifesaving treatment to ordering any treatment regardless of what's at stake to just ordering.
Exactly. You can prove the slippery slope argument wrong simply by taking a step back to something the government does intervene in and trying to make the argument there.
Should Gov. be allowed to tell parents how to treat children? THINGS TO CONSIDER: First they intervene to prevent you beating your children with a bat, then intervene if you refuse to feed them, then cancer, then any disease. - slippery slope.
See? Nonsense. The slippery slope is argument is just as nonsensical as the religious one. This is an argument about where to draw the dividing line between a parent's right to decide what is best for their children and the state's responsibility to their children. Both sides in this argument agree that there already is a line, the question is on which side of it this falls.
-
That's always the risk, a foot in the door of parental authority.
I think these parents are being incredibly stupid, I think they are, most likely killing their child and it is disgusting. But what is even more terrifying is the possibility of government stepping into the role of parent.
In some ways it reminds me of court cases here regarding people's right to end their own life in a dignified way, rather than wasting away, only in this case there is the massive added complication that something could be done.
It a very difficult thing to stand by and watch parents more or less condemn their child to death, but it is equally difficult seeing the authorities telling parents how to raise their children, also the report doesn't strongly allude to what the child himself wanted. I'm assuming he went to chemo and hated it so much he would rather take his chances, of course, even there, a child of 13 has very little concept of death.
It's one of those Micro/Macro considerations if you ask me, on a Micro-scale, it seems like the right thing to do to protect the child, but on a Macro-scale it sets a precedent that is just a bit scary.
-
In some ways it reminds me of court cases here regarding people's right to end their own life in a dignified way, rather than wasting away, only in this case there is the massive added complication that something could be done.
And the real irony is the sides are reversed. Most of the people who will argue for saving the child would also argue to allow someone to end their life with dignity while the reverse is also true and many people who will argue in favour of the parents right to choose to not treat the child would argue against euthanasia. :D
-
I'm sitting here wondering why the government isn't stepping in letting all these kids who the parents beat and used drugs go right back to the environment they got them out of. :doubt:
-
Because assault and drug abuse are illegal, and in the case of drug abuse, there is a addiction factor to take into account.
If this is both what the child and the parents believe they want, then the government shall make no law to restrict that choice.
Don't know if you have Jehovah witnesses in the US, but it's like them and Blood Transfusions, does the government have the right to force a Jehovah's witness to take a Blood Transfusion, even to save their life, if they believe it is the wrong thing to do?
Does the Government have the right to force someone to have or not have an abortion, even to save their or the childs life, if they do not wish to?
It's not just the subject that needs to be considered, it's the repercussions of it.
Edit: To take an extreme version of such a case, assume a mother is pregnant, and the child is healthy, but carrying the baby to full term will kill the mother, does the court have the right to 'protect' the child by forcing the mother to die? It's a different scenario from the one posted, but it does highlight the dangers inherent in the court feeling it has the right to make such a decision.
-
In some ways it reminds me of court cases here regarding people's right to end their own life in a dignified way, rather than wasting away, only in this case there is the massive added complication that something could be done.
And the real irony is the sides are reversed. Most of the people who will argue for saving the child would also argue to allow someone to end their life with dignity while the reverse is also true and many people who will argue in favour of the parents right to choose to not treat the child would argue against euthanasia. :D
The big difference is "consenting adult"
There is quite a list of things you can't do with kids but can with adults. Reason? They're kids.
The doctor said somewhere that if it shows the chemo won't work, they won't keep doing it.
If parents could decide what was best all the time, we wouldn't have child services.
-
Edit: To take an extreme version of such a case, assume a mother is pregnant, and the child is healthy, but carrying the baby to full term will kill the mother, does the court have the right to 'protect' the child by forcing the mother to die? It's a different scenario from the one posted, but it does highlight the dangers inherent in the court feeling it has the right to make such a decision.
There is a train coming and a baby and the government's mother are on the tracks, they only have time to save one, which one do they get?
Why does your example have to include the death of someone? You've made it a value choice on who gets to live and who gets to die. Now both people in this have their lives at the whim of the government.
-
Because it is a deliberately extreme example.
The example you give is not about choice on the part of the parent though, is it? If someone was deliberately on the train tracks, then they are probably suicidal, which is a whole different ball-game, if they have their child with them, then it is even more obvious that there are mental factors involved.
This is more like a mother and her baby trapped on the line, and the mother has a choice to save herself or the child, does the government have the right to dictate her decision for her? And even then, that isn't a complete analogy, because in this case, both the parents and the child had made their decision, only to have it reversed by the courts.
-
In some ways it reminds me of court cases here regarding people's right to end their own life in a dignified way, rather than wasting away, only in this case there is the massive added complication that something could be done.
And the real irony is the sides are reversed. Most of the people who will argue for saving the child would also argue to allow someone to end their life with dignity while the reverse is also true and many people who will argue in favour of the parents right to choose to not treat the child would argue against euthanasia. :D
The big difference is "consenting adult"
There is quite a list of things you can't do with kids but can with adults. Reason? They're kids.
The doctor said somewhere that if it shows the chemo won't work, they won't keep doing it.
If parents could decide what was best all the time, we wouldn't have child services.
I didn't comment on the right or wrong of it. I just find it ironic that many of the people who want the government to step in are pro-choice while many of the people quite happy to let the parents kill this child in order to avoid the danger of government intervention are pro-life and anti-euthanasia. :D
-
What if I'm pro-parents and pro-dignified suicide?
-
Then you're strange and different and we reject you!!!
;)
-
:(
-
The example you give is not about choice on the part of the parent though, is it? If someone was deliberately on the train tracks, then they are probably suicidal, which is a whole different ball-game, if they have their child with them, then it is even more obvious that there are mental factors involved.
It's a hypothetical situation. Imagine a car broke down on the tracks and you only have time to save one. The point is there is no wrong answer.
This is more like a mother and her baby trapped on the line, and the mother has a choice to save herself or the child, does the government have the right to dictate her decision for her? And even then, that isn't a complete analogy, because in this case, both the parents and the child had made their decision, only to have it reversed by the courts.
Except the mother won't die if the kid gets chemo.
But to your example, what is the governments position here? What is the goal?
The answer to the example is the government gets to determine. The parents aren't in total control of their child's life. Any rights the parents have over their children are given to them by the government. Even if the parent gets to choose, that option is given by the government.
This is amazing to me. The government tells you what you can and can't do with and to your kids all the time. This is not new stuff.
-
In some ways it reminds me of court cases here regarding people's right to end their own life in a dignified way, rather than wasting away, only in this case there is the massive added complication that something could be done.
And the real irony is the sides are reversed. Most of the people who will argue for saving the child would also argue to allow someone to end their life with dignity while the reverse is also true and many people who will argue in favour of the parents right to choose to not treat the child would argue against euthanasia. :D
The big difference is "consenting adult"
There is quite a list of things you can't do with kids but can with adults. Reason? They're kids.
The doctor said somewhere that if it shows the chemo won't work, they won't keep doing it.
If parents could decide what was best all the time, we wouldn't have child services.
I didn't comment on the right or wrong of it. I just find it ironic that many of the people who want the government to step in are pro-choice while many of the people quite happy to let the parents kill this child in order to avoid the danger of government intervention are pro-life and anti-euthanasia. :D
It makes perfect sense :wtf:
-
We already have a term for this. It's called "medical neglect."
Nobody gives a **** what the child wants, pretty much ever. That's how our legal system works.
90% versus 5% is a HUGE difference. The parents just don't have the right to reject medical attention for their child in such cases.
Blue Lion: uh, huh, derr? Compulsory school attendance, no extreme corporal punishment, etc?
-
It makes perfect sense :wtf:
You don't find pro-lifers wanting to prevent government interference so that parents can make a decision that will kill their child ironic? :wtf:
-
If God did not want us to use chemotherapy, then why did he let us come up with the idea?
-
It makes perfect sense :wtf:
You don't find pro-lifers wanting to prevent government interference so that parents can make a decision that will kill their child ironic? :wtf:
No, it's power. They don't want the government to decide, THEY want to decide and the answer is "no"
-
This is what I mean by Micro/Macro comparisons, however. I'm not saying that what the parent decided was 'right' by a very long shot, but then, you are on really shaky ground when the Courts say it is 'wrong', or, rather, force a child to take that treatment despite the fact he himself does not want it, because it sets up an uneasy precedent. Much like that girl who was, originally, denied the chance to have an abortion in Romania.
It's quite a hotbed of debate, and not just in the US, there is the case of the Jehovahs Witness sextuplets in Canada, which is very similar, the children were taken from the Mother because she refused to let them have Blood Transfusions that would save their lives:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article1426576.ece
The fact is, however, every single one of these cases is individual, there are times when the parents wishes are to be considered, and times when the needs of the child come first, the hard part is not setting precedent, I'm not 100% certain where such a thing would stand in the US which is supposed to make no laws to go against a person's religion, so things could get legally sticky. Stauch, Wheat and Tingle do a very good job of tackling this in the Sourcebook of Medical Law, in the chapter entitled 'The Incompetent Patient', but if ever there were an area that needs to be watched incredibly carefully to ensure that the courts are not merely acting out the law, but imposing their morals upon parents, this is it.
-
It makes perfect sense :wtf:
You don't find pro-lifers wanting to prevent government interference so that parents can make a decision that will kill their child ironic? :wtf:
No, it's power. They don't want the government to decide, THEY want to decide and the answer is "no"
I'm sorry, I assume you've just misunderstood but I can help but laugh at the whole thing.
:lol:
-
It makes perfect sense :wtf:
You don't find pro-lifers wanting to prevent government interference so that parents can make a decision that will kill their child ironic? :wtf:
No, it's power. They don't want the government to decide, THEY want to decide and the answer is "no"
I'm sorry, I assume you've just misunderstood but I can help but laugh at the whole thing.
:lol:
No I get it completely.
-
Then what is the difference between parents deciding to do an abortion and this? Isn't it also their decision?
-
Then what is the difference between parents deciding to do an abortion and this? Isn't it also their decision?
Yes, yes it is.
-
Irony blinkers in full effect I see.
Oh well, I'll be satisfied with pretty much everyone else getting it. :p
-
Irony blinkers in full effect I see.
Oh well, I'll be satisfied with pretty much everyone else getting it. :p
I didn't say I didn't get the irony, I just said it made sense.
-
Then what is the difference between parents deciding to do an abortion and this? Isn't it also their decision?
Isn't this debate sticky enough without throwing a mostly-unrelated, even more hot-button issue into the mix?
This is one case that really splits me. On one hand, I'm generally in complete agreement with what KT said earlier; the idea of the government being able to intervene in parents' decision-making and personal beliefs does set a dangerous precedent. But on the other...this is a kid's life we're talking about here, a life that, according to the percentages, could most likely be completely saved with the application of a tried-and-true medical treatment. Yes, a physically-unpleasant treatment, but an effective one nonetheless. As others have said, the slippery-slope argument doesn't hold up in many (even most) cases, and considering the unique circumstances of this case, it would be difficult to argue that the child's life would benefit from said treatment being withheld from him. There's also the question as to how far a legal adult's personal religious beliefs can be allowed to impinge upon a child under their care, particularly when said beliefs pose a clear hazard to that child's life.
In the end...I'd have to fall on the side of preserving life. If chemo would be as effective in the boy's case as is claimed, withholding it from him constitutes neglect of his well-being. Part of me finds it a tough pill to swallow, but I have to grant at, in certain situations, people sometimes need protection from themselves.
(And from a personal standpoint, the parents' claims that whatever weird New-Age stuff led to this medical decision is "compatible" with their Catholic faith completely baffles me. What they're doing with their son borders on the antithesis to Catholicism, in my humble opinion.)
-
That's where I fall as well.
I am pro-LIFE. And as a result, Anti-anything that interferes with that.
Abortion = out, except in EXTREME cases
Euthanasia = out, except in EXTREME cases
and, as in this case, denying someone medical care when they are incapable of making a rational decision concerning that care.
What happened here is the kid went for his first treatment and spent the rest of the day puking his guts out. This distressed his mom, probably some milk-drinker who's parents spent the 60s blasted outta they're skulls. So she tells him that he doesnt' have to do another treatment. She would also be the moronic bimbo who begs the doctor to administer the chemo when the kid is in the final stages a year or so from now.
-
Would that the answers were so simple.
It's a simple matter to divide the world up into 'good' and 'bad', 'right' and 'wrong', but I think there is really very little in this world that really falls into those categories.
If Life is merely determined by the existence of a heartbeat, then why try to help the oppressed, they are alive, after all? Maybe it's because choice, because Freedom has a role to play in not simply being alive, but in being Human. And what if the choices they choose to make are not in agreement with what you believe are the 'Right' choices to make. Well, that's what choices are for.
That's why you cannot take a brush and paint a broad canvas of opinions across the lives of every man, woman and child, and why situations such as these are far more complex than a simple 'Right' or 'Wrong' answer.
-
So does the kid get the chemo or no?
-
First of all, I was drunk when I posted that **** last night. I threw out "slippery slope" and y'all jumped on it and ignored the question. It's a buzzword, get over it.
The real question is, is there a legal right for government to step in? If so, and they do choose to (as they have) then how far does that right extend? How far should it?
That's always the risk, a foot in the door of parental authority.
I think these parents are being incredibly stupid, I think they are, most likely killing their child and it is disgusting. But what is even more terrifying is the possibility of government stepping into the role of parent.
In some ways it reminds me of court cases here regarding people's right to end their own life in a dignified way, rather than wasting away, only in this case there is the massive added complication that something could be done.
It a very difficult thing to stand by and watch parents more or less condemn their child to death, but it is equally difficult seeing the authorities telling parents how to raise their children, also the report doesn't strongly allude to what the child himself wanted. I'm assuming he went to chemo and hated it so much he would rather take his chances, of course, even there, a child of 13 has very little concept of death.
It's one of those Micro/Macro considerations if you ask me, on a Micro-scale, it seems like the right thing to do to protect the child, but on a Macro-scale it sets a precedent that is just a bit scary.
This is what is really being discussed. The parents are obviously dumb, and the kid is apparently retarded (learning disability, can't read, thinks he's a medicine man but doesn't know what that means) yet they both agree that they don't want chemo. Chemo doesn't always save a patient (90% is great. it's also not 100%) and its extremely "unpleasant." If you don't want it, and your parents as your legal guardians don't want you to have it, why does a state judge get to decide you have to have it?
To save your life. Obviously. And this has been done with tons of other things: first thing that comes to my mind are seat belts.
Again, I'm not really arguing my personal opinion here (I think he should get treatment, he's a member of a sham-health group, retarded, and he'll probably die otherwise) and I'm certainly not using "libertarian scare tactics." I most definitely realize that these kinds of rulings go by case-by-case scenarios (so far.) I simply think its an interesting constitutional question. Conversely, I'm also a big fan of Gov. not telling me what to do in my personal life, even if its good for me. Because the key word is me, and part of everyone's fundamental natural-born, God-given right should be to have the power to decide their own fate, particularly if it only affects them.
It was probably as difficult a decision for the judge as it was for the parents to decide not to continue with chemo (if they're decent parents; beliefs aside.)
-
...then why try to help the oppressed...
Well, usually, you are protecting life when you stop oppression cause there's usually a fair amt of mass murder going on.
Of course, it's not that simple, but for simple stuff like birth and death and illness, it is that simple.
-
That's where I fall as well.
I am pro-LIFE. And as a result, Anti-anything that interferes with that.
Abortion = out, except in EXTREME cases
Euthanasia = out, except in EXTREME cases
and, as in this case, denying someone medical care when they are incapable of making a rational decision concerning that care.
What happened here is the kid went for his first treatment and spent the rest of the day puking his guts out. This distressed his mom, probably some milk-drinker who's parents spent the 60s blasted outta they're skulls. So she tells him that he doesnt' have to do another treatment. She would also be the moronic bimbo who begs the doctor to administer the chemo when the kid is in the final stages a year or so from now.
To me, this is a paradoxical, alien philosophy.
I find it interesting that your social preferences are so firmly entrenched in "pro-life" yet status quo for you is to denounce big Gov. Saving a willing patient / victim's life is rarely ever a bad thing. But if you're preserving someone's life against their will... does that not violate the right to self-determination? Abortion is one thing, it includes two people's lives, one of which can speak for itself, the other which can't. But Euthanasia?
-
So does the kid get the chemo or no?
According to the courts, he does, and, from a legal standpoint, it appears there is nothing to be done about it.
My own opinion is that I am glad he is getting the treatment, as I said earlier, I think it is disgusting that his parents would behave in this way, but sometimes you need to detach yourself from emotion and look at the picture from a larger angle, it's difficult, particularly in the case of children, not to get your feelings all tangled up with the incident, anyone can be guilty of that.
Whilst the purpose of law is to be a voice for those who have none, care needs to be taken to make sure that voice is truly speaking for the 'victim' and not for itself, and that can only be done on a case by case basis.
There is a famous quote about eternal vigilance, I always felt it didn't just mean standing on the shores looking outwards.
-
Didn't the ruling only state he would have to be seen by an Oncologist? There is no forcing Chemo or radiation only that he needs to be seen and the doctor come up with a treatment. I believe the family even gets to pick the doctor. They could pick one that uses alternative treatments and with the doctors support go with that.
Really though I don't like the government forcing anything but then again I do think the child should be required to get medical treatment. Your required to have your children immunized. Your required to take them to the ER if they break an arm. How is this any different? And before you say a broken arm isn't life threatening it can be. Only takes a blood clot from a compound fracture getting to the heart.
-
But then, on the opposite side of the coin, someone has the right to check themselves out of Hospital, even against a Doctor's better judgement.
The first, and possibly the most important Freedom is the freedom to take responsibility for your own life, and Courts need to be very very careful when inhibiting that particular Freedom, no matter how emotionally charged the situation may be.
@Fubar, as I understand the discussion, the whole purpose of the case was because parents wanted to use 'New Age' techniques and didn't want the Chemo, whereas the judge has ordered for the Chemo to take place because it is the most likely method of saving the childs' life.
-
The real question is, is there a legal right for government to step in? If so, and they do choose to (as they have) then how far does that right extend? How far should it?
Yes, and as far as they choose to extend it.
I'm confused as to why someone thinks the government doesn't have the ability to set up laws regarding its citizens as they see fit. They take it as far as we allow them.
This is what is really being discussed. The parents are obviously dumb, and the kid is apparently retarded (learning disability, can't read, thinks he's a medicine man but doesn't know what that means) yet they both agree that they don't want chemo. Chemo doesn't always save a patient (90% is great. it's also not 100%) and its extremely "unpleasant." If you don't want it, and your parents as your legal guardians don't want you to have it, why does a state judge get to decide you have to have it?
Because the state represents the kid too.
The state intervenes on a child's behalf all the time. Abuse and neglect cases are rampant. Why is it suddenly a shock that the state makes decisions for a child against the parent's wishes?
Again, I'm not really arguing my personal opinion here (I think he should get treatment, he's a member of a sham-health group, retarded, and he'll probably die otherwise) and I'm certainly not using "libertarian scare tactics." I most definitely realize that these kinds of rulings go by case-by-case scenarios (so far.) I simply think its an interesting constitutional question.
What exactly is the Constitutional question?
-
But then, on the opposite side of the coin, someone has the right to check themselves out of Hospital, even against a Doctor's better judgement.
Kids aren't adults. They can't make that decision.
I know what's next. "If the kids can't decide, why can't their parents?"
Parents can be A. stupid, B. neglectful or C. indifferent. Every one of these can lead to a decision being made by the parent that is not in the child's best interest. Some parents are just plain assholes in regards to their kids.
-
Well, the people voicing their concerns right now are people too. No-one was shocked at the decision as far as I can tell, but a lot of people are recommending caution in cases such as these, not because of this singular case, but because of the possibility of dangerously inhibiting precedent.
We have similar laws in the UK, cultures that indulge in such practices as genitalia mutilation are strictly forbidden from practising that particular 'Freedom' here, but it's not a line to cross, it's an 'area' and a particularly grey one.
I certainly hope that we never, ever simply accept that the Government has the right to make these kinds of decisions, regardless of whether we feel they are the correct decisions or not, that is the real danger.
But then, on the opposite side of the coin, someone has the right to check themselves out of Hospital, even against a Doctor's better judgement.
Kids aren't adults. They can't make that decision.
I know what's next. "If the kids can't decide, why can't their parents?"
Parents can be A. stupid, B. neglectful or C. indifferent. Every one of these can lead to a decision being made by the parent that is not in the child's best interest. Some parents are just plain assholes in regards to their kids.
Agreed, they can be, but Parents are far from the only assholes in the world who's decisions affect those around them, that's why questions must always be asked, and the situation must constantly be examined and re-examined, there is no law against being an asshole, because everyone has a different definition of who is an asshole.
-
I certainly hope that we never, ever simply accept that the Government has the right to make these kinds of decisions, regardless of whether we feel they are the correct decisions or not, that is the real danger.
Unfortunately yea, you do. As a citizen of the government, you are kind of stuck with what they say. Our options are to determine what it is they say, not if they say it.
You can't deny government authority over it's people, what you can do is change what that authority says.
Agreed, they can be, but Parents are far from the only assholes in the world who's decisions affect those around them, that's why questions must always be asked, and the situation must constantly be examined and re-examined, there is no law against being an asshole, because everyone has a different definition of who is an asshole.
You're right, that's why the government picks and chooses which parts to intervene in. That's why social workers and others work with families and kids instead of having some weird system of permission slips for parents to parent their kids.
Parents parent their kids until the government sees something they don't like. That is never going to change, ever. As long as people beat their kids, molest them, kill them, the government will ALWAYS be able to step in.
-
You can't deny government authority over it's people, what you can do is change what that authority says.
I suppose that's my whole point, if people don't express their concerns over these decisions, if people don't question every single one to make sure it is correct, then we are not changing what that authority says, we are not asking the Government to be accountable for its decisions, and that is more dangerous than these parents are.
-
You can't deny government authority over it's people, what you can do is change what that authority says.
I suppose that's my whole point, if people don't express their concerns over these decisions, if people don't question every single one to make sure it is correct, then we are not changing what that authority says, we are not asking the Government to be accountable for its decisions, and that is more dangerous than these parents are.
They get to question them all the time. Pretty much like we're doing now. But they can't overturn them if they don't like it.
People elect their representatives, what else do people want?
-
Does Gov. have the legal (or moral) right to tell parents what to do?
Don't get confused. This really isn't about religion, its about the integrity and sovereignty of parental guardianship.
Wow, I agree with KT...
This is essentially it. Ultimately, is the child the ward of his parents, or the ward of the state? And keep in mind that government is far less likely than a parent to be personally invested in a kid's well being.
From what I heard, a relative of this family also went through chemotherapy and died despite (or perhaps because of) it. So there's that to consider also.
As long as people are religious and delusional, like these people are, government should absolutely interfere.
Once people lose the stupid, then we can talk about government not interfering.
-
What about when the Government is religious and delusional? I'm not overly aware of Government being any less free of stupid than people are.
I agree that the Government does need to intervene at times, but it's a case of always questioning why, I think that's what Blue Lion and I are basically agreeing on, but coming at it from opposite ends. That each case needs to be taken as a one-off, that way, everyone is protected from the potential stupid of everyone else.
-
the idea of the government being able to intervene in parents' decision-making and personal beliefs does set a dangerous precedent.
They are only allowed to under very specific circumstances such as abuse, neglect, and medical neglect. That's it.
and I'm certainly not using "libertarian scare tactics."
That's what the slippery slope arguement is.
Because the key word is me, and part of everyone's fundamental natural-born, God-given right should be to have the power to decide their own fate, particularly if it only affects them.
Ordinarily this would be the case.....but this is a special circumstance.
-
Mostly cause it wouldn't be him, it would be his kid
-
What if the kid had tetanus and the parents decided to pray instead of taking the kid to a doctor?
It's neglect, plain and simple. The parents are responsible for keeping the child healthy and alive. If they fail to do so, it's neglect.
That was an amazing analogy. Because tetanus treatment is hella life-threatening.
I hope you're not being sarcastic, because zack is correct. The only cure for tetanus is not getting it in the first place. There is no treatment for it. Not taking a kid to a doctor after potential exposure to the tetanus bacterium is a virtual guarantee of agonizing death.
-
Precedent has already been set for this sort of case in Canada by the Supreme Court. In the primary case, a Jehova's Witness girl who was underage refused a blood transfusion that would save her life on religious grounds. The parents also refused to order it. The Court said "Too bad, a minor's right to life trumps freedom of religion, and she's not old enough to make the decision herself." She got the transfusion.
I don't think parents have the right to watch their children die untreated because of a belief system. And as the child is not capable of making legal decisions and their belief patterns are imposed by their parents, their wishes should not be considered. The sole important fact is that right to life is the most cherished belief in Western society, and if a treatment exists it is the obligation of the Courts to see that the child reaches an age at which they can make a decision about their medical treatment.
-
Yup, that was the case I mentioned earlier, when it is a case of someone not making the decision for themselves, but making it for other people then, yes, there needs to be guidelines and limits, I'll accept that as given, but also it is important to not assume that every decision made by the courts in these matters is 'right' purely because it matches up to what we think the decision ought to have been in the first place.
Parents make the 'wrong' decisions for their children at times, it could be anything from leaving them in a car while they shop, to ignoring them when they complain about being bullied at school, fortunately, there is pretty strong defence against the Government getting too carried away with telling parents what are the correct decisions to make, but those defences will remain strong only so long as people allow them to.
-
Leaving your kid in a car is a fairly serious thing. I'm not sure of the crime exactly, but people call cops all the time about it.
-
Exactly, it depends under what circumstances, for how long, etc, it should, strictly speaking, never be done, but the level of response should match the level of the action, same with ignoring complaints about Bullying, sometimes it does a tiny amount of damage, sometimes it can lead to tragedy.