Show me where in the Constitution it says you have the right to medical treatment. Cite?
Now show me where in the natural world anything has a right to live in the face of cancer or disease or carnivores. “The right to life” is a meaningless phrase.
And if they do, that should be respected. Already said that. But I also think you’re falling back on hysteria as an argument here. I’ve not advocated allowing even informed parents to kill their children outright. (After pregnancy, of course.) But cancer kills. Disease kills, often even with treatment. And I don’t think we should get so caught up in saving each individual life that we force the living to suffer.
As the twin battles of abortion rights and medical marijuana show, our courts are terribly tangled up with the issue of whether or not we have the “right” to make medical treatment decisions the state might disagree with. I’m not a legal scholar, and even this paperstruggles to make sense of the legalities and the Constitutional aspects of medical autonomy. I’m neither prepared nor capable of making arguments from that viewpoint. But I am prepared and capable of articulating my own thoughts about how things ought to be, my own ethics, as that’s what was eventually asked.
The issue is BLOCKING IT FOR SOMEONE ELSE. Where do you get the notion that one citizen has a right to block another citizen from medical tretament? Cough up the cite already. YOU are the one alleging a right (and the right to life is inherent in the right not to be murdered, so that’s a fucking stupid obfuscation on your part).
And if they’re incapable of understanding it, then the state has to protect their interests. Correct?
Yes you are, just as preventing them from eating or breathing is killing them outright, so is preventing them from getting medical treatment.
HL ususally doesn’t kill if proper tretamennt is given, and who the fuck is being forced to suffer? The only person being forced to suffer is the kid being slowly murdered by the prevention of necessary medical treatment. You think dying of cancer is fun?
How should I know? I just know you used the word incorrectly.
This is not about what decisions informed adults have the right to make, but about the state’s responsibility in protecting those who don’t have the ability to make informed decisions. It’s about the kid, not the parents. The parents are not being robbed of any rights. If they get sick and want to treat themselves with herbal quackery (and fucking die as a result), that’s up to them, and good riddance. The gene pool gets a little cleaner. The issue is whether they have the right to make that decision for somebody else, and they don’t. Parents do not have a right to decide that their children should not be allowed to live. Full fucking stop.
WhyNot, I know you don’t know me from Adam, but I just want to say that I usually enjoy reading your posts and I respect your opinions regarding children and child-raising (and many other topics). But I’m feeling kind of baffled reading your posts here.
I know you said you have nothing further to add to the discussion, but I’m curious:
IIRC you are in nursing school, and I’m also a nursing student. We’ve covered some ethical issues in my class, and I wonder if this issue has come up for you? In my classes we have talked about legal obligations, including nurses being a mandatory reporter for suspected child abuse and neglect. I’m curious - if your jurisdiction states that denying necessary medical treatment is neglect, and if you support parents’ rights to withhold lifesaving medical treatment from minor children who cannot give consent, would you be willing to report them to the state for possible child neglect?
Let me clarify; I had nothing more to add at that time because I think **Diogenes **had done no more in his last post but repeat his hysteria and misrepresentation of what I said. I’m glad to address new questions, like yours. Getting tangled in his “debate” would lead me down an emotional path, while currently I’m quite dispassionate on the issue. I’ve wrangled with **Dio **before, and choose not to at this time.
I haven’t taken that class yet, and of course may change my mind when I do. See the second part of the definition of ethics I quoted above: examining, studying, developing, etc. one’s own ethics. I’m constantly doing that, and everything I’ve posted here is where, upon examination, my ethics are at today. I’m sure they weren’t the same when I was 20, nor will they remain unchanged when I’m 40. As I said, at the moment, this isn’t a *comfortable *ethic; I didn’t choose it because it feels good. I’m not entirely pleased with it, and I’d welcome a suitable change or edit that isn’t purely emotionally based.
As a nurse, I will follow all the laws that apply to me. I may simultaneously work to change them. I will definitely continue to speak my mind about my personal views on things, and attempt to engage in debate and push people’s own boundaries and encourage them to think about new ways of seeing issues they thought they were certain of, because I think that’s a valuable part of being in a democracy of thinking people. But I will follow all the laws as they are written.
ETA: One thing I’ve learned in life that I do intend to bring to nursing is that I can’t fix everyone. Parents - people - are going to make lots of choices I don’t agree with, and it’s going to be my job to give them the best medical care I can while they’re there with me. What they do when they leave my office is their business and their karma, not mine. I’ve seen nurses get burnt out trying to fix the drug addicts and the cardiac patient who won’t change his diet or take a vacation or the young girl determined to have sex without protection. I can educate, I can pass out the drugs and the condoms, but what people do with their lives is ultimately not up to me.
I asked you questions. You either can’t or won’t answer them. That’s what’s going on. Don’t act like you’re riding off on some kind of high horse. You just can’t defend your position, that’s all.
By all means, fight for the right to deny medical treatment to dying children. Power to the people (unless they’re children).
It’s not absolute, and we do have sperm banks in that eventuality.
You’re generally a voice of reason on parental issues, WhyNot, but you are way, way off here. A parent does not have a right to kill her child even if her reasons for allowing the child’s death are sincere. The state can respect the parent’s rights in most cases - nearly all of them, even - without giving parents absolute ownership of their children, including a right to kill them through neglect. I don’t think the rights of other parents are diminished by the Minnesota courts and child services intervening here: to be frank, the mother is an idiot or a lunatic (take your pick), and the child is mentally disabled. Neither is in a position to make these kinds of decisions. This is the rare case where it’s actually better for everyone if somebody else makes the choice because otherwise, society loses whatever contribution Daniel is going to make.
I believe my phrase was “cookoo for cocoa puffs” back in post #29. I agree with you, in this particular case. The mother is certainly not competent to be making medical decisions for her son. I’m just not so certain that’s always true for every parent making an unpopular medical decision.
It is never an acceptable choice for a parent to deny medical treatment to a denying child. It’s irrelevant whether the parent is competent to understand the decision. It’s not the parent’s decision to make. Children are not property. They are spearate, individual citizens. They are not just extensions of YOU.
So this isn’t about a slippery slope, it is about an arbitrary line that you have in your mind about things labeled “medical”.
Does a parent have a right to not feed a child? To refuse a diabetic child in DKA insulin and proper fluids? Does the state have a right to impose that parents place their child in a car seat? Does a parent have a right to administer an herbal remedy that has large amounts of lead in it and which has no benefit but is felt by the parents culture of origin to possess some healing property? If a child is in an accident and is losing blood rapidly which could be stopped easily by pressure to the wound does the parent have a right to prevent a health care professional from applying pressure to the wound?
Personally I’d take being branded to being allowed to die in DKA or of hemmorhage.
My wife is a bone marrow transplant coordinator. She corroborates the 90% survival rate with chemo treatment. She also says that Hodgkins untreated leads to a very agonizing death.
I agree that there are other cases where this situation isn’t so clear cut. But in this case, with a very treatable cancer, a kid who isn’t capable of making the decision and a mom who’s cuckoo for cocoa puffs (I like!), I think it’s easy.
The Hausers are back in Minnesota, and a hearing is scheduled for this afternoon. I guess the court will order chemotherapy to resume if the cancer hasn’t progressed to a stage where it wouldn’t work or is less likely to work, which would probably require more tests.
From a Darwinian viewpoint, I think our society would be better off if we did NOT require this kid to have proper medical treatment.
Let his wacko mother continue to ‘treat’ him with alternative medicine, and he will be dead soon – before he is old enough to breed and pass on these wacko genes. The fact that he is also mentally deficient is just another reason ot to want him to breed.
However, as a society, we have decided that requiring parents to properly care for their children, including providing food, clothing, shelter, and medical care is a policy that we want for our society. So we require it, even in cases where the ‘health of the species’ would be better off if we didn’t.
The really sad part of this story is that when the mother was giving birth in the hospital a doctor wasn’t available to prevent the umbilical cord wrapping around his neck. Apparently the oxygen deprivation was the cause of permanent brain damage and probably led to the family being cautious of medical opinion later.
This child is dying and running from help with his mother. Sad all around.