20 May 09
I'm willing to bet that this has probably been discussed before, but here goes.
I've been casually been following this story:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/05/19/minnesota.forced.chemo/index.html
This kid went through some chemotherapy and his cancer got a lot better. Then the mother of this child decided to use "Nemenhah" (http://www.nemenhah.org/) to treat the cancer and (surprise surprise) the cancer got worse.
A court ruled to force the child to take a test to verify that the cancer was getting worse and then get chemo again to treat it.
I've seen a number of other stories similar to this kind of thing ranging from faith healing to vegans starving their kids with a bad diet, etc...
The question is, how far does the government have to go to change or override the medical treatment of children over the decisions of the parents?
20 May 09
Originally posted by PsychoPawnThe government has no business engaging in family matters. That is not its purpose.
I'm willing to bet that this has probably been discussed before, but here goes.
I've been casually been following this story:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/05/19/minnesota.forced.chemo/index.html
This kid went through some chemotherapy and his cancer got a lot better. Then the mother of this child decided to use "Nemenhah" (http://www.nemenhah.org/ ...[text shortened]... to change or override the medical treatment of children over the decisions of the parents?
20 May 09
Originally posted by PsychoPawnThe Gov. should go all the way, Parents should have no say.
I'm willing to bet that this has probably been discussed before, but here goes.
I've been casually been following this story:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/05/19/minnesota.forced.chemo/index.html
This kid went through some chemotherapy and his cancer got a lot better. Then the mother of this child decided to use "Nemenhah" (http://www.nemenhah.org/ ...[text shortened]... to change or override the medical treatment of children over the decisions of the parents?
20 May 09
Originally posted by PsychoPawnlet the wacky parents do whatever they want to do, and then if the child dies just charge them with neglect, simple.
I'm willing to bet that this has probably been discussed before, but here goes.
I've been casually been following this story:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/05/19/minnesota.forced.chemo/index.html
This kid went through some chemotherapy and his cancer got a lot better. Then the mother of this child decided to use "Nemenhah" (http://www.nemenhah.org/ ...[text shortened]... to change or override the medical treatment of children over the decisions of the parents?
20 May 09
Originally posted by generalissimoSo you see a car racing to hit a brick wall and instead of doing something to stop it you just wait to let it kill the passenger?
let the wacky parents do whatever they want to do, and then if the child dies just charge them with neglect, simple.
20 May 09
Originally posted by joe beyserSo if I, as a parent, believed in throwing my kids into the middle of lake Superior to make sure they're strong enough to swim to the shore then that's just a family matter?
The government has no business engaging in family matters. That is not its purpose.
In this case, for example, the mother's decision is objectively going to lead to the death of her child.
I would guess you're with generalissimo and would say it should just be a matter to procecute after the fact?
20 May 09
1 edit
Originally posted by joe beyserYou mean like forbidding the parents from being notified when their minor shows up at an abortion clinic to have an abortion? That kind of interferance? You fail to recognize the times your living in my friend. Big Brother is everywhere!!
The government has no business engaging in family matters. That is not its purpose.
20 May 09
Originally posted by generalissimoI think palynka put it pretty well.
you can't intervene with parents unless they're abusing them, it doesn't matter if you think what they believe is stupid.
I was simply thinking that neglect in itself is abuse and hence is reason to intervene.
Part of the issue in the case above was that the parent is going to this wishy-washy natural healing route when there is no evidence that it will help and there is objective evidence that chemotherapy would help (and HAS helped) the child.
I guess the question is at what point does it reach the point of abuse?
20 May 09
Originally posted by whodeyWouldn't it be equal "big brother" interferrence to require the parents to be notified?
You mean like forbidding the parents from being notified when their minor shows up at an abortion clinic to have an abortion? That kind of interferance? You fail to recognize the times your living in my friend. Big Brother is everywhere!!
20 May 09
Originally posted by PsychoPawnI wonder if the courts would do the same regarding homeopathic treatments.
I think palynka put it pretty well.
I was simply thinking that neglect in itself is abuse and hence is reason to intervene.
Part of the issue in the case above was that the parent is going to this wishy-washy natural healing route when there is no evidence that it will help and there is objective evidence that chemotherapy would help (and HAS helped) the child.
I guess the question is at what point does it reach the point of abuse?
I think it's easy to think of more intermediate cases where things become very ambiguous. Leaving the decision relatively discretionary is always a possibility, of course, but never very satisfying.
20 May 09
1 edit
Originally posted by PsychoPawnYes or no, is the welfare of the childs the parents responsibility? If yes, who then should supercede it? If no, who then assumes this role? The state?
Wouldn't it be equal "big brother" interferrence to require the parents to be notified?