How far do parents rights over their children go?

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?

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
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?

The government has no business engaging in family matters. That is not its purpose.

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
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?

The Gov. should go all the way, Parents should have no say.

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
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?

let the wacky parents do whatever they want to do, and then if the child dies just charge them with neglect, simple.

Originally posted by generalissimo
let the wacky parents do whatever they want to do, and then if the child dies just charge them with neglect, simple.

So 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?

Originally posted by joe beyser
The government has no business engaging in family matters. That is not its purpose.

So 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?

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?

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
So 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?

you can't intervene with parents unless they're abusing them, it doesn't matter if you think what they believe is stupid.

Originally posted by generalissimo
you can't intervene with parents unless they're abusing them, it doesn't matter if you think what they believe is stupid.

If neglect is a charge you can accuse the parents with, why can't you charge them while the kid is still alive?

Originally posted by Palynka
If neglect is a charge you can accuse the parents with, why can't you charge them while the kid is still alive?

I guess you could, yes.

Originally posted by joe beyser
The government has no business engaging in family matters. That is not its purpose.

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!!

Originally posted by generalissimo
you can't intervene with parents unless they're abusing them, it doesn't matter if you think what they believe is stupid.

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?

Originally posted by whodey
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!!

Wouldn't it be equal "big brother" interferrence to require the parents to be notified?

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
Wouldn't it be equal "big brother" interferrence to require the parents to be notified?

You're going to be very disappointed with the results of logic in response to whodey's ravings. He's completely impervious to it.

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
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 wonder if the courts would do the same regarding homeopathic treatments.

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.

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
Wouldn't it be equal "big brother" interferrence to require the parents to be notified?

Yes 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?