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 12 of 19 FirstFirst ... 21011121314 ... LastLast
Results 111 to 120 of 181

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

  1. #111
    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
    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.
    That's like saying that engineers who, after inspecting a bridge, advise it be closed down because it's main support members are compromised due to rust and cracks.

    It's not a "bias". It's called an expert opinion. Something those parents do not have on their side.
    Thank You Barack Obama for Restoring Honor To The Presidency.
    President Obama will rank as one of our greatest presidents!

  2. #112
    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 Makedde View Post
    They may as well just kill the child right now, he is screwed with so called 'natural remedies'. The parents, if they had won, would basically have won the right to murder their own son.
    You would prefer the state have the right to murder the kid. Noted.

  3. #113
    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
    That's like saying that engineers who, after inspecting a bridge, advise it be closed down because it's main support members are compromised due to rust and cracks.

    It's not a "bias". It's called an expert opinion. Something those parents do not have on their side.
    You need to work on your analogies.

    The correct analogy would be a dispute between engineer A who wants a bridge repaired with additional steel and concrete supports underneath (and who owns a construction company), and engineer B who wants to add an aerial span to provide that support.

    Saying that engineer A has no bias in that instance is just as absurd and incorrect as saying the doctors have no bias in this case.

  4. #114
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 11:21 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ADK_Forever View Post
    That's like saying that engineers who, after inspecting a bridge, advise it be closed down because it's main support members are compromised due to rust and cracks.

    It's not a "bias". It's called an expert opinion. Something those parents do not have on their side.
    Wow, so according to you, years of raising the child as it's legal guardian and intimatly involved in all aspects of that minor child's life does not give the parent any level of compitencey. Outstanding

    law.com Law Dictionary

    expert witness
    n. a person who is a specialist in a subject, often technical, who may present his/her expert opinion without having been a witness to any occurrence relating to the lawsuit or criminal case. It is an exception to the rule against giving an opinion in trial, provided that the expert is qualified by evidence of his/her expertise, training and special knowledge. If the expertise is challenged, the attorney for the party calling the "expert" must make a showing of the necessary background through questions in court, and the trial judge has discretion to qualify the witness or rule he/she is not an expert, or is an expert on limited subjects. Experts are usually paid handsomely for their services and may be asked by the opposition the amount they are receiving for their work on the case. In most jurisdictions, both sides must exchange the names and addresses of proposed experts to allow pre-trial depositions.
    See also: expert testimony
    Oh sure, pure objectivity here

    A technical opinion has value, but it does not make decisions.

    Parents make the decisions. If their child is like a bridge who's suffering from rust and other wear, it is the parent's decision on rather to close the bridge, for how long, rather to tear it down compleatly or perform patch-work repairs (the latter may allow the bridge to stay open compleatly or for part of the day).

    Give the doctors so much power and watch what happens when, in their medical opinion, there's no reason to terminate a pregnancey. We'll see then how fast your position on the issue changes.
    Last edited by Jerry; 05-17-09 at 10:50 AM.

  5. #115
    Professor
    Marilyn Monroe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    03-06-14 @ 02:20 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    2,137

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    I think your useing very sujective qualifyers here, similer to pain, and don't forget that requiering the opinion of 3 phisitions lost Tesas the Roe decision
    Usually when someone is brain dead they pull the plug. I'm not sure they even need the families permission in all cases.

    I think if a kid has stage 4 cancer and is in constant pain they should be put on pain meds and made comfortable, but no more treatments.
    "It's not that I'm afraid to die, I just don't want to be there when it happens." Woody Allen.

  6. #116
    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 Jerry View Post
    Parents make the decisions. If their child is like a bridge who's suffering from rust and other wear, it is the parent's decision on rather to close the bridge, for how long, rather to tear it down compleatly or perform patch-work repairs (the latter may allow the bridge to stay open compleatly or for part of the day).
    In my analogy the doctors and the engineers have no vested interest or bias in their recommendations. The engineer is giving his expert opinion as to the state of health of the bridge, just as the doctor's only concern is the health of the patient.

    In this case, there are no intelligent alternatives. It's not like the parents are going with radiation, at one doctor's advice, vs. chemo at another's. They are doing nothing.
    Thank You Barack Obama for Restoring Honor To The Presidency.
    President Obama will rank as one of our greatest presidents!

  7. #117
    Liberal Fascist For Life!

    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:14 PM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    86,323
    Blog Entries
    2

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ADK_Forever View Post
    In my analogy the doctors and the engineers have no vested interest or bias in their recommendations. The engineer is giving his expert opinion as to the state of health of the bridge, just as the doctor's only concern is the health of the patient.

    In this case, there are no intelligent alternatives. It's not like the parents are going with radiation, at one doctor's advice, vs. chemo at another's. They are doing nothing.
    For me the question is twofold though. How do you legally determine when a parent is making a justifiable medical decision for their child, and when they are just being neglectful? How do you make that law? Secondly, where is the dividing line between what a government can and cannot force people to do?

    I think that the government just has no place making medical decisions for families. I do not trust the government to the level it would take for me to be comfortable with them making the decisions, and I think it is too great an infringement on personal liberty.

  8. #118
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 11:21 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ADK_Forever View Post
    In my analogy the doctors and the engineers have no vested interest or bias in their recommendations. The engineer is giving his expert opinion as to the state of health of the bridge, just as the doctor's only concern is the health of the patient.

    In this case, there are no intelligent alternatives. It's not like the parents are going with radiation, at one doctor's advice, vs. chemo at another's. They are doing nothing.
    While I agree with you on this example, I also realize that this is a seroget argument for another issue.

    I agree with the seroget argument, however I would stand in it's way so as to impeed governement interfearence in private medical decisions.

  9. #119
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Chicago
    Last Seen
    04-02-15 @ 04:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    8,211

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

    Parents make the decisions. If their child is like a bridge who's suffering from rust and other wear, it is the parent's decision on rather to close the bridge, for how long, rather to tear it down compleatly or perform patch-work repairs (the latter may allow the bridge to stay open compleatly or for part of the day).
    Funny thing, that, because children aren't bridges; that they are in anyway analogous to a piece of property is objectionable. Now, I'm certainly no nanny-government, liberal busy-body, but the idea of completely and utterly surrendering a child's will to their parents as if the child were nothing more than a piece of property is extreme and contrary to the law - both in letter and spirit.

    Parents absolutely have a legitimate role in dictating and supervising the development of their children, indeed, parents are the most essential form of government a society has, but children are also part of a society, and they too have rights; granted, they are able to exercise them to a lesser extent than others, but they still retain the most fundamental ones, and one of the very few legitimate functions of government is to protect our rights. Obviously, a balance must be struck between the rights of parents and children but the parents' rights are anything but absolute, nor are the child's nonexistent.

  10. #120
    Liberal Fascist For Life!

    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:14 PM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    86,323
    Blog Entries
    2

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Ethereal View Post
    Funny thing, that, because children aren't bridges; that they are in anyway analogous to a piece of property is objectionable. Now, I'm certainly no nanny-government, liberal busy-body, but the idea of completely and utterly surrendering a child's will to their parents as if the child were nothing more than a piece of property is extreme and contrary to the law - both in letter and spirit.

    Parents absolutely have a legitimate role in dictating and supervising the development of their children, indeed, parents are the most essential form of government a society has, but children are also part of a society, and they too have rights; granted, they are able to exercise them to a lesser extent than others, but they still retain the most fundamental ones, and one of the very few legitimate functions of government is to protect our rights. Obviously, a balance must be struck between the rights of parents and children but the parents' rights are anything but absolute, nor are the child's nonexistent.
    I do not think there is a lot of dispute that there has to be a balance point. What is in dispute is where the balance point is. I think we all agree that starving a child is a crime, and can and should cost a parent the right to care for their child. What I think a very few of us are arguing(and we are an odd coalition who don't agree on much outside this issue) is that when it comes to making medical decisions for children, the balance point is directly under the parents. They should have sole discretion in making those decisions simply because the government has no place making the decision.
    Last edited by Redress; 05-17-09 at 12:28 PM.

Page 12 of 19 FirstFirst ... 21011121314 ... 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
  •