When the courts become "Big Brother"

[Jack Slocombe]

Interesting case. Judge rules the parents are neglectful of childs medical care and orders treatment. The parents reject it on the grounds of religious belief. It looks like the treatment is about 95% sucessful and no treatment is about 95% fatal. Is personal freedom of choice, good or bad, more important than the big brother mentality that says we know what is better for you. The conflict is that both sides are right and when they are in conflict, the rights of the individual should rule. The kid will probably die, but that is his choice. Big brother should spend his time with folks who want his help. The soldier fights for our rights and do-good judges cannot take them away. Shame on the judge.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/ap_on_he_me/ ... rced_chemo

[SQUACKEE]

"The kid will probably die, but that is his choice"

They wouldnt force chemo on an adult. Its the fact that a child is not mature enough to make life and death choices and if the parents religion says no chemo, then in a sense they are taking the childs right to life away. IMHO

[Marlow]

Squack is correct. The kid is a minor, therefore, by definition, he is not in a position to make an informed decision, so no, it's not his choice. The parents are sacrificing his life on their religious position? I simply don't get it. I'd rather give up everything I am than see my child die.

[SQUACKEE]

Squack is correct. The kid is a minor, therefore, by definition, he is not in a position to make an informed decision, so no, it's not his choice. The parents are sacrificing his life on their religious position? I simply don't get it. I'd rather give up everything I am than see my child die.

I dont want to live in a country where parents can "kill" their kids because of a religion belief.

[Pego]

In Wausau, WI (my hunting grounds), the trial of a mother that refused any medical assistence to her dying 11-year old daughter is under way. She considered the daughter's illness a test of her faith and continued to pray, while a neighbor and family members were begging her to call an ambulance. She adamantly refused. The child had diabetes btw, a perfectly treatable condition. She died of diabetic ketoacidosis, roughly a year ago.

What say you now, Jack?

[Jack Slocombe]

In Wausau, WI (my hunting grounds), the trial of a mother that refused any medical assistence to her dying 11-year old daughter is under way. She considered the daughter's illness a test of her faith and continued to pray, while a neighbor and family members were begging her to call an ambulance. She adamantly refused. The child had diabetes btw, a perfectly treatable condition. She died of diabetic ketoacidosis, roughly a year ago.

What say you now, Jack?

As an atheist, I think she is dumb, but I also believe she has the right to follow her beliefs. People die all the time for all kinds of reasons. I was lucky, I was born into a family of thinking folks. Some are not so lucky and must cover their faces for their entire life.

[Marlow]

she has the right to follow her beliefs.

At the cost of another human being's life? I think not.

[Jack Slocombe]

she has the right to follow her beliefs.

At the cost of another human being's life? I think not.

There is honesty in strong personal belief. It may not be very smart or it may be brilliant, who are we as outsiders to judge. They do their lives and we do ours, no conflict. Life goes on in any case.

[jazzcyclist]

If a parent's religious beliefs permitted him to allow his 11-year-old daughter to have sex with a 40-year-man, wouldn't that be trumped by the state's obligation look out for the well-being of the child?

[Jack Slocombe]

If a parent's religious beliefs permitted him to allow his 11-year-old daughter to have sex with a 40-year-man, wouldn't that be trumped by the state's obligation look out for the well-being of the child?

Now your talking about violating a specific law and that is a crime. Big difference.

[jazzcyclist]

If a parent's religious beliefs permitted him to allow his 11-year-old daughter to have sex with a 40-year-man, wouldn't that be trumped by the state's obligation look out for the well-being of the child?

Now your talking about violating a specific law and that is a crime. Big difference.

Good point. But don't you think this shows some inconsistency in laws, when they'll protect a child from being molested, but not insure that a child gets adequate, mainstream, life-saving medical care when needed?

[Pego]

[quote=Jack Slocombe]

she has the right to follow her beliefs.

At the cost of another human being's life? I think not.

There is honesty in strong personal belief. It may not be very smart or it may be brilliant, who are we as outsiders to judge. They do their lives and we do ours, no conflict. Life goes on in any case.[/quote:dc048mp1]

I do appreciate your libertarian posture and as far as the adult individual is concerned, we have no argument. The child is a different situation. As a parent, you are supposed to act in the child's best interest, but you don't own that person. I sit on ethics committeee of a couple of hospitals. A policy of both of them is that if the parents (guardians) of a minor disagree with the suggested course of treatment, until the courts decide, you do treat the child. A case in point would be a Jehovah's witness in the car accident, requiring transfusion. The adult can refuse it and be allowed to die, but the child, we would give the transfusion to in spite of the parent's protest.

As far as "who are we as outsiders to judge" is concerned, every reasonable person would agree that insulin is the treatment of choice of juvenile diabetes. If somebody wants to pray in addition to it, nobody prevents them to do so.

[Jack Slocombe]

If a parent's religious beliefs permitted him to allow his 11-year-old daughter to have sex with a 40-year-man, wouldn't that be trumped by the state's obligation look out for the well-being of the child?

Now your talking about violating a specific law and that is a crime. Big difference.

Good point. But don't you think this shows some inconsistency in laws, when they'll protect a child from being molested, but not insure that a child gets adequate, mainstream, life-saving medical care when needed?

I agree, but I think the law attempts to not tread on personal freedoms as much as possible and it is a ragged line. No easy answer. A comparison is the new eco laws in California, which have lots of validy,but the backlash is lots of companies just pick up stakes and move to another state or country where they can better hold down their costs. Both sides are valid and in conflict.

[lonewolf]

This is a no-brainer. Treat the child.

[SQUACKEE]

I think the greatest gift a country can give to its citizens is liberty but not to the point of madness.

With some Muslim followers it is acceptable to kill your daughter if she has brought shame on the family. I see no real differance between that and letting your kid die without the medical help that is available because of a religious belief.