- Joined
- Apr 8, 2008
- Messages
- 19,883
- Reaction score
- 5,120
- Location
- 0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Other
While I would never advocate what could be parental neglect, I am equally uncomfortable second guessing parental decisions.
Parents have the right to decide what is and is not in their child's best interests. They have the right to decide what adds or detracts from their child's quality of life. They have the right to decide what constitutes appropriate care.
Society should respect that right.
It is not a universal right. However, especially when there are religious and spiritual dimensions to the dilemma, I will not second guess a parental decision.While that is all good and well and I do lean that way, it seem seriously wrong to let children die because their parents refuse medical treatment. That stance is letting parents kill their own kids. Is that a parental right?
Again, it depends on the rationale. Superseding religious belief even for the preservation of human life is a dangerous realm for courts to venture into. That is a line I will not cross. I would object strenuously should any cross that line against me, I will not cross it against someone else.In some ways, refusing to let your child have medical life savings treatment could be seen as negligent homicide in some cases.
The state has no right to second guess the parent in such matters. As an operation of law, the 9th and 10th Amendments stand solidly against such a position, in addition to the 1st Amendment in this particular case.Parents dont own their children they are responsible for them.Childrens decisions on medical issues are made by the state not their parents.
The state has no right to second guess the parent in such matters. As an operation of law, the 9th and 10th Amendments stand solidly against such a position, in addition to the 1st Amendment in this particular case.
As a matter of practice, parents authorize medical treatments for their children, not the state.
Unless we are prepared to surrender parental authority and parental prerogative to the state, yours is an indefensible position.
Then look again. Your hypothetical is totally off point.If the parents had a religious belief that their child was the Antichrist and the only way to prevent him from being reborn was to starve him to death over the course of three weeks, would the state have any cause to intervene? I'm hard-pressed to see any distinction at all between the two cases.
The state has no right to second guess the parent in such matters.
Healing or homicide? The use of prayer to treat sick childrenLast Easter Sunday, an 11-year-old Wisconsin girl died of untreated diabetes after her parents chose to pray for her recovery rather than seek medical help. Madeline Kara Neumann's parents, Dale and Leilani Neumann, are scheduled to be arraigned in Marathon County next week on charges of second-degree reckless homicide.
The Wisconsin case is only the latest in a grim procession of hundreds of such cases stretching back to the late 1800s in England, when a sect called the Peculiar People ended up on trial for allowing generations of children to die as a result of their decision to spurn doctors and medicine.
Few realize just how common the use of faith healing still is in our state and elsewhere, and how many children's lives are at stake. Except for the by-now predictable flurries of media attention every time another child dies due to what experts call religion-based medical neglect, there has been surprisingly scant attention paid to the accumulative toll of these deaths. That is one reason UW history instructor and author Shawn Francis Peters decided a couple of years ago to research the controversial topic.
"When Prayer Fails: Faith Healing, Children, and the Law" is the first book to look unflinchingly at the tragic cases of children who have died because their parents place absolute faith in the power of prayer rather than in the efficacy of modern medicine. The book, published this spring by Oxford University Press, came out just weeks before Kara -- as she was called -- died in Weston, propelling Peters into the national spotlight.
Yes they have. The state has been in the wrong each and every time.Parents have been tried and convicted of withholding medical treatment from their children for stupid religious beliefs.
Then look again. Your hypothetical is totally off point.
This child's parents are making a decision to pursue an alternate path of care predicated on certain religious convictions of theirs. Your hypothetical parents are affirmatively seeking to end their child's life.
Yes they have. The state has been in the wrong each and every time.
On a side note....religious beliefs are never "stupid." Those who argue otherwise are themselves wrong, each and every time.
OK, well what if they believed that their child was the Antichrist, and instead of feeding him hot dogs they were going to feed him arsenic, to purge the devil from his body. Just an alternate path of care.
You need to google before you post.
Arsenic Compound Improves Survival of Adults with Uncommon Form of Leukemia - Drugs.com MedNews
OK, well what if they believed that their child was the Antichrist, and instead of feeding him hot dogs they were going to feed him arsenic, to purge the devil from his body. Just an alternate path of care.
While there are a multitude of incidents over the past couple years, here is a recent one about parents are refusing to allow chemotherapy on their kid and the kid appears to be ignorant of the situation.
Judge rules family can't refuse chemo for boy
The kid is pretty much a goner without the treatment.
So, should parents be allowed to refuse life saving treatment for their children?
[EDIT] Based on Etheral's insightful marks, assume at least for the discussion that the medical live saving treatment is medically sound and likely to save the child's life [/EDIT]
Actually, I'm pointing out the flaw in your analogy. You are presuming the arsenic to be a poison, and is being used as a poison. Arsenic is used in approved medical treatments. Your presumption of ill use, and thus your analogy, fail completely.Irrelevant. You understand the point of the analogy and are just splitting hairs instead of addressing the point.
Cyanide. Botulism. Mercury. Take your pick.
Actually, I'm pointing out the flaw in your analogy. You are presuming the arsenic to be a poison, and is being used as a poison. Arsenic is used in approved medical treatments. Your presumption of ill use, and thus your analogy, fail completely.
Same flaw. Same failure.
cyanide - Etymology, Appearance and odor, Occurrence and uses, Toxicity, Poison use, In Current Events
Medical uses of mercury
Safety and efficacy of NeuroBloc (botulinum toxin ...[Neurology. 1999] - PubMed Result
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?