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 16 of 19 FirstFirst ... 61415161718 ... LastLast
Results 151 to 160 of 181

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

  1. #151
    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
    We're not talking about unfit parents....are we?

    What did I miss? Did the court revoke the parent's rights?

    I apologize if this is the case.
    In this case, the courts revoked the parents' right to make medical decisions for their child, as they should.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry
    You're absolutely correct: if the parent's have been deemed "unfit" by the court then their rights are gone, as is their say, and the new court appointed guardian can make any decision in their place.
    Laws on child protection differ from one state to another. Parents don't necessarily have to be declared "unfit" (if that term even exists in a legal sense in all states) in order for the court to take away some of their rights when they do something stupid. The court is essentially saying that they're unfit to make medical decisions, while still allowing them to otherwise raise their child however they see fit.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  2. #152
    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
    I know, allowing people to choose their own fate is inhumane, but I am an Evil Conservative.
    But they are NOT choosing their own fate. They're choosing their child's fate.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  3. #153
    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 Kandahar View Post
    But they are NOT choosing their own fate. They're choosing their child's fate.
    That's their right.

  4. #154
    Liberal Fascist For Life!

    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:25 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 Kandahar View Post
    But they are NOT choosing their own fate. They're choosing their child's fate.
    Some one has to. I tend to trust parents more than the government.

  5. #155
    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?

    A Minnesota judge issued an arrest warrant Tuesday for the mother of Daniel Hauser, a 13-year-old boy who is refusing treatment for his cancer, after neither she nor the boy showed up for a court appearance.

    "It is imperative that Daniel receive the attention of an oncologist as soon as possible," wrote Brown County District Judge John R. Rodenberg in an order to "apprehend and detain."

    "His best interests require it," Rodenberg wrote.

    The judge had scheduled the hearing to review an X-ray ordered by the court to assess whether Daniel's Hodgkin's lymphoma was worsening.

    The boy's father, Anthony Hauser, did appear at Tuesday's hearing, where he testified that he last saw the mother, Colleen Hauser, at the family's farm on Monday night, when she told him she was going to leave "for a time."

    He said he did not know where they had gone.

    During the hearing, Dr. James Joyce testified he saw the boy and his mother on Monday at his office. He said the boy had "an enlarged lymph node" near his right clavicle and that the X-ray showed "significant worsening" of a mass in his chest. In addition, the boy complained of "extreme pain" at the site where a port had been inserted to deliver an initial round of chemotherapy. The pain was "most likely caused by the tumor or mass pressing on the port," testified Joyce, who called the X-ray "fairly dramatic" evidence that the cancer was worsening.

    Rodenberg ordered custody of the boy transferred to Brown County Family Services and issued a contempt order for the mother.
    Medical ethicists say parents generally have a legal right to make decisions for their children, but there is a limit.
    "You have a right, but not an open-ended right," Arthur Caplan, director of the center for bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania, said last week. "You can't compromise the life of your child."
    Find the bitch, lock her up and force the treatment on the boy. Sometimes tough love needs to be used. Save the boy's life and then enjoy the opportunity to argue the manner it was saved.
    Last edited by ADK_Forever; 05-20-09 at 07:06 AM.
    Thank You Barack Obama for Restoring Honor To The Presidency.
    President Obama will rank as one of our greatest presidents!

  6. #156
    Just Crazy Enough to Work
    Edify_Always_In_All_Ways's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Wilmington, DE
    Last Seen
    01-31-14 @ 02:03 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    1,299

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    Some one has to. I tend to trust parents more than the government.
    The government has an interest in keeping children alive, something that can't be said for some parents. I'd like to see this kid kept alive until he's 18; if he wants to get cancer and die as an adult, so be it, but his parents don't have the right to kill him. What if he had a brain tumor and his mom wanted to crack his skull with a baseball bat to get it out?
    Quote Originally Posted by Korimyr the Rat
    Heh. Do you realize how many children I'd murder to be immortal and have an army of willing slaves?

  7. #157
    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 ADK_Forever View Post
    Find the bitch, lock her up and force the treatment on the boy. Sometimes tough love needs to be used. Save the boy's life and then enjoy the opportunity to argue the manner it was saved.
    If the kid dies after this latest turn of events, the mother should be tried for 2nd degree murder/manslaughter.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  8. #158
    Liberal Fascist For Life!

    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:25 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 Edify_Always_In_All_Ways View Post
    The government has an interest in keeping children alive, something that can't be said for some parents. I'd like to see this kid kept alive until he's 18; if he wants to get cancer and die as an adult, so be it, but his parents don't have the right to kill him. What if he had a brain tumor and his mom wanted to crack his skull with a baseball bat to get it out?
    I understand what you are saying, it just frames the issue differently than I do. To me, there are a few places the government just does not belong. As an example, the government does not belong in my bedroom, as what I do with another consenting adult or myself is no ones business but mine. Likewise, I don't think the government has a place in the doctors office as I am making medical decisions for me or my family. This does mean that bad things are going to happen on occasion as a result, but nothing is ever actually free.

  9. #159
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 02:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

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

    For this particular case....

    The parents are loons and are going to get their boy killed. Would we allow them to choose to let their kid play on the freeway? Hell, he's got a five percent chance of getting hit by a truck, it must be okay if the parents say so, right?

    It might be different if "alternative medicine" had any factual or scientific foundation. Exactly how well does AM treat lymphoma? What's the remission rate? Compare that to modern medical science and it's success against lymphoma, which was pegged at 95% in the OP's article.

    The government has the duty to protect the citizen against harm from others, and that includes harm to children by their ignorant or deluded parents, if necessary.
    Last edited by Scarecrow Akhbar; 05-20-09 at 04:26 PM.

  10. #160
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 02:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    That's their right.
    No.

    Their right is to choose their own fate.

    Their duty is to ensure their child gets the best medical care available.

    If they're too damn stupid to make the right choices, and it's clear they fall into this category, then the state's duty is to remove the endangered child from their care to ensure he gets the treatment needed.

Page 16 of 19 FirstFirst ... 61415161718 ... 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
  •