View Poll Results: So, should parents be allowed to refuse life saving treatment for their children?

Voters
142. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes, parents should be allowed

    31 21.83%
  • No, parents should not be allowed

    97 68.31%
  • I don't know

    14 9.86%
Page 10 of 19 FirstFirst ... 89101112 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 181

Thread: Should parents be allowed to refuse life saving treatment for their children?

  1. #91
    Sage
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    08-27-09 @ 06:41 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,344

    Re: Should parents be allowed to refuse life saving treatment for their children?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    It has the best chance of working of any available option. If there is an equally viable option, then the parents should be able to pick from amongst them.
    You do not know that. For that matter, neither do the doctors. Remember, they're only playing at being gods.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    Their "alternative treatments" are no different than doing absolutely nothing; in either case the result will be the death of their child. And please spare me the defense of the effectiveness of pseudoscientific quack medicine again...believe me, you don't want to go down that road.
    You do not know this either.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    Do you believe that parents should be allowed to do nothing at all when their child is gravely ill? How is that any different than denying them food?
    It depends on their reasoning for doing nothing. So long as they are making conscientious decisions, I am not prepared to challenge their right to make those decisions.

    And spare me the red herring pontifications about abuse and neglect. Cases of abuse and neglect by definition do not involve conscientious decisions.

  2. #92
    Guru
    ADK_Forever's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Last Seen
    05-07-11 @ 07:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    3,706

    Re: Should parents be allowed to refuse life saving treatment for their children?

    Quote Originally Posted by celticlord View Post
    [LIST=1]The parents made a choice to pursue alternative treatments.
    The ruling in the OP article stated:
    A Minnesota judge ruled Friday that a 13-year-old cancer patient must be evaluated by a doctor to determine if the boy would benefit from restarting chemotherapy over his parents' objections.

    In a 58-page ruling, Brown County District Judge John Rodenberg found that Daniel Hauser has been "medically neglected" by his parents, Colleen and Anthony Hauser, and was in need of child protection services.
    Daniel was diagnosed with Hodgkin's lymphoma and stopped chemotherapy in February after a single treatment. He and his parents opted instead for "alternative medicines" based on their religious beliefs.
    Doctors have said Daniel's cancer had up to a 90 percent chance of being cured with chemotherapy and radiation. Without those treatments, doctors said his chances of survival are 5 percent.
    Court filings also indicated Daniel has a learning disability and can't read.
    Daniel's parents have been supporting what they say is their son's decision to treat the disease with nutritional supplements and other alternative treatments favored by the Nemenhah Band.

    The Missouri-based religious group believes in natural healing methods advocated by some American Indians.
    In this case I can certainly see why the judge sided with the doctors. Nutritional supplements? Are you serious? 90% possible chance of success versus 5% without chemo.

    I hope these idiot parents try to interfere, are put in jail and the kid is cured. Of course, they would argue it would have happened without the chemo. Idiots.
    Thank You Barack Obama for Restoring Honor To The Presidency.
    President Obama will rank as one of our greatest presidents!

  3. #93
    Sage
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    08-27-09 @ 06:41 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,344

    Re: Should parents be allowed to refuse life saving treatment for their children?

    Quote Originally Posted by ADK_Forever View Post
    In this case I can certainly see why the judge sided with the doctors. Nutritional supplements? Are you serious? 90% possible chance of success versus 5% without chemo.
    Ok, so the doctors say THEIR method has a 90% chance of success, and that any other approach has a 5% chance of success.

    Yep, no bias there.

  4. #94
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 06:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: Should parents be allowed to refuse life saving treatment for their children?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    Terry Schiavo?
    Terry Schiavo was not a child whose parents were killing her by denying her food (or medical treatment). She was a braindead woman with no hope of recovery whose husband had the legal right to make that decision for her. If the kid in this case was already braindead and his parents wanted to remove the feeding tube, I would absolutely support their rights to make that decision without the state interfering. But he is NOT braindead and he CAN possibly recover with chemo. Nice try though.

    Do you think parents should be able to deny their child food because Jesus told them to? Do you think parents should be able to deny their child life-saving medical care because Jesus told them to?
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  5. #95
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 06:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: Should parents be allowed to refuse life saving treatment for their children?

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    Denying food is clearly actively harmful to a child. It is easy to legislate. For medical treatments, it is nearly impossible to legislate due to too many other factors. The best you can do is legislate some one to make the decision on medical care for children. Who do you propose to trust to make the best informed decision on a child's welfare, if not the parents?
    Child Protective Services who investigate the case, the doctors who testify in the court regarding the best option, and the elected/appointed judge who rules on the case.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  6. #96
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 06:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: Should parents be allowed to refuse life saving treatment for their children?

    Quote Originally Posted by celticlord View Post
    It depends on their reasoning for doing nothing. So long as they are making conscientious decisions, I am not prepared to challenge their right to make those decisions.

    And spare me the red herring pontifications about abuse and neglect. Cases of abuse and neglect by definition do not involve conscientious decisions.
    Who cares if it's a "conscientious decision" if it harms the child? Some parents believing that beating their kids within an inch of their life for the most minor infraction will teach them discipline. That's a conscientious decision too, but it's still child abuse.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  7. #97
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 06:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: Should parents be allowed to refuse life saving treatment for their children?

    Quote Originally Posted by celticlord View Post
    Ok, so the doctors say THEIR method has a 90% chance of success, and that any other approach has a 5% chance of success.

    Yep, no bias there.
    The fact that you are DEFENDING quackery is obviously clouding your judgment on this issue. That goes above and beyond the normal libertarian rhetoric that "The government doesn't have the right to ever interfere with parents under any circumstances." I'm telling you now: Defending quack medicine is not an argument that you are going to win. I suggest you take a different tack to explain why you don't think the state should interfere. Just some advice, do with it what you will.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  8. #98
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Last Seen
    12-18-13 @ 10:58 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    495

    Re: Should parents be allowed to refuse life saving treatment for their children?

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    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]
    Yes, of course. The parents (or guardian) should have the ultimate say of a minor child's situation.

  9. #99
    Liberal Fascist For Life!

    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:02 AM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    86,451
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Should parents be allowed to refuse life saving treatment for their children?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    Child Protective Services who investigate the case, the doctors who testify in the court regarding the best option, and the elected/appointed judge who rules on the case.
    So it's getting pretty complicated now, and still comes down to opinions as to what is best for the child. Child Protective Services, are they qualified to make medical decisions over a parent? Doctors and judges who may or may not make unbiased, accurate decisions. I can remember, as an example, the controversy started by a Detroit judge who held up ruling, and then ruled against a 14 year old girl who wanted to get an abortion after she got pregnant from being molested by her mothers boyfriend(with mothers consent). Holding up the ruling was important, making any abortion later term and more dangerous.

  10. #100
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 06:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: Should parents be allowed to refuse life saving treatment for their children?

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    So it's getting pretty complicated now, and still comes down to opinions as to what is best for the child. Child Protective Services, are they qualified to make medical decisions over a parent? Doctors and judges who may or may not make unbiased, accurate decisions.
    These parents obviously aren't making unbiased, accurate decisions. So I'll trust the people who have the medical degrees.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

Page 10 of 19 FirstFirst ... 89101112 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •