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 5 of 19 FirstFirst ... 3456715 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 181

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

  1. #41
    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
    True dat. Problem is, however, the parents were not "neglecting" the child. Different treatment does not per se constitute neglect.
    All scientific data indicates that chemotherapy is an effective treatment and that quack medicine is not. If you don't draw the line there, where DO you draw the line? What if the parents weren't actually pursuing the quack medicine, but were just praying for their child's life? Would that still constitute a "different treatment" or would it then be neglect? What if they weren't pursuing the quack medicine OR prayer, and were just doing nothing? Would that still constitute a "different treatment" or would it then be neglect? And if that would be neglect, are you really prepared for the logical outcome: the government investigating whether or not parents are truly praying and/or pursuing quack medicine?

    Quote Originally Posted by celticlord
    Or will you crucify the physician when/if the child dies under the "conventional" treatment? By custom, doctors are allowed the luxury of burying their mistakes.
    The difference is that the doctor pursued an effective method that just didn't work this time.
    Last edited by Kandahar; 05-15-09 at 10:29 PM.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  2. #42
    Sage
    UtahBill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Utah
    Last Seen
    09-12-16 @ 08:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    17,513

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

    Matthew 18:6.....get out your millstones, brothers, we got some parents to throw into the river.

    and if that isn't enough.....
    Matthew 19:14 and Luke 18:16 Suffer the children to come unto me, for such is the kingdom of heaven.....
    Oracle of Utah
    Truth rings hollow in empty heads.

  3. #43
    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
    What do you mean? What is your basis for determining what is an "actual religious context" and what isn't? The number of adherents? How much you personally agree with their religious beliefs?
    Read the whole sentence next time.

    Quote Originally Posted by celticlord View Post
    When foolish examples fail to establish an actual religious context for the treatment of an acknowledged medical condition.
    If you can demonstrate how demonic possession is an acknowledged medical condition, then your analogy becomes worth something. Until then, all the religion in the world won't make the diagnosis valid. Absent valid diagnosis, religious interpretations are premature, as even religious-based healing and alternative medicines do not prescribe treating the wrong condition.

    The kid has cancer. Everyone acknowledges that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    Jim Jones had a religious context for his actions. That doesn't make them right.
    Don't be so sure. The folks who drank the Kool-Aid most likely would disagree with you.

  4. #44
    Sage
    UtahBill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Utah
    Last Seen
    09-12-16 @ 08:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    17,513

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

    Quote Originally Posted by TOJ View Post
    Say the kid will live six months without the treatment and twelve months with the treatment and the treatment will cause those twelve months to be a living hell for him.

    Should the parents have any say in which way it goes under these conditions?

    .
    The OP has a different scenario, are you moving the goal posts?
    Oracle of Utah
    Truth rings hollow in empty heads.

  5. #45
    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
    All scientific data indicates that chemotherapy is an effective treatment and that quack medicine is not.
    Since this sentence is patently false, the rest of your argument may be casually disregarded.

    Chemotherapy has a statistical probability of success within certain parameters, depending on the type of cancer and the stage of the disease. It is not universally effective.

    Alternative medicines do not have a corpus of research that establishes the same statistical probabilities, but the anecdotal evidence for some alternative therapies shows them to be occasionally effective.

    The doctor is making the safe prescription with chemotherapy--in essence, he's playing the odds. It's the parent's right to choose whether to bet on him or against him.

  6. #46
    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
    Since this sentence is patently false, the rest of your argument may be casually disregarded.

    Chemotherapy has a statistical probability of success within certain parameters, depending on the type of cancer and the stage of the disease. It is not universally effective.
    And the judge has already stated that the child would undergo more tests, and if the doctors concluded that it was too late for chemotherapy to be effective, he would not order the child to undergo the process.

    Quote Originally Posted by celticlord
    Alternative medicines do not have a corpus of research that establishes the same statistical probabilities, but the anecdotal evidence for some alternative therapies shows them to be occasionally effective.
    Anecdotal evidence is not evidence at all. There is a placebo effect. "Alternative medicines" are almost entirely fraudulent snake-oil. If they weren't, mainstream doctors would endorse them. And occasionally, they do.

    What do you think about prayer? If the parents promise to pray for their child and not give him any treatment (real medicine OR quack medicine), do you believe that that's within their rights? If so, should the state be in the business of investigating parents to make sure they are actually praying?

    Quote Originally Posted by celticlord
    The doctor is making the safe prescription with chemotherapy--in essence, he's playing the odds. It's the parent's right to choose whether to bet on him or against him.
    And how long do those odds have to be before it ceases to be "freedom of religion" and becomes murder?
    Last edited by Kandahar; 05-15-09 at 10:44 PM.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  7. #47
    activist professor Inferno's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Tipping Velvet
    Last Seen
    07-01-09 @ 12:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    2,017

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

    Who is too say what a life saving treatment is? That is an open question. I don't really view chemo as life saving as many times it is not. There is a lot of illness and so many ramifications that can be caused by this.

    If you are reffering to a blood transfusion or the removal of a tumor it is entirely different. It is a case to case question. There is no pat answer. the variables are limitless.

    Parents mold and guide they nuture and advise. They do not own their children. The children are almost on loan until they come of age.

    It is a hard question to answer. It raises so many other questions.
    Democracy is the road to socialism. Karl Marx
    Life member NY city Fisting Club!
    I am Zoochie Purple Quivering Ghost Bear a Tiki Bar Tarte, you want some of my Panties.

  8. #48
    Sage
    UtahBill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Utah
    Last Seen
    09-12-16 @ 08:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    17,513

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

    Quote Originally Posted by celticlord View Post
    Since this sentence is patently false, the rest of your argument may be casually disregarded.
    Chemotherapy has a statistical probability of success within certain parameters, depending on the type of cancer and the stage of the disease. It is not universally effective.

    Alternative medicines do not have a corpus of research that establishes the same statistical probabilities, but the anecdotal evidence for some alternative therapies shows them to be occasionally effective.

    The doctor is making the safe prescription with chemotherapy--in essence, he's playing the odds. It's the parent's right to choose whether to bet on him or against him.
    patently false? how so?

    The last 3 weeks several doctors and some parents I am very close to have been playing the odds, successfully, with my 10 year old granddaughter. About 6 months ago they stopped giving her chemo for the inoperable tumor on her brain stem, thinking that she didn't need it anymore, then they discovered a tumor higher in the brain that grew from very small to golf ball size in a few months, but this one was operable.

    We prayed, but praying is meant to be done in conjunction with real medical treatment provided by doctors with training that God allowed them to learn.

    She should come home tomorrow, after 18 days in the hospital.
    Oracle of Utah
    Truth rings hollow in empty heads.

  9. #49
    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
    And the judge has already stated that the child would undergo more tests, and if the doctors concluded that it was too late for chemotherapy to be effective, he would not order the child to undergo the process.
    Ok, you acknowledge your statement was in error. This is progress.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    Anecdotal evidence is not evidence at all. There is a placebo effect. "Alternative medicines" are almost entirely fraudulent snake-oil. If they weren't, mainstream doctors would endorse them.
    This is not progress.

    1. Anecdotal is evidence. Sometimes, it's the only kind you get.
    2. Alternative medicines have proven efficacy in a number of conditions.
    3. Mainstream doctors endorse what the insurance companies re-imburse. Which is why they often prescribe drugs for which the full corpus of clinical evidence show little or no statistical probability of efficacy.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    What do you think about prayer? If the parents promise to pray for their child and not give him any treatment (real medicine OR quack medicine), do you believe that that's within their rights? If so, should the state be in the business of investigating parents to make sure they are actually praying?
    Yes it is within their rights.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    And how long do those odds have to be before it ceases to be "freedom of religion" and becomes murder?
    Never.

  10. #50
    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, you acknowledge your statement was in error. This is progress.
    If it's too late for chemotherapy to be effective, then obviously there isn't any point in forcing the child to undergo it against his parents' religious beliefs. That is why they are conducting tests.

    Quote Originally Posted by celticlord
    This is not progress.

    1. Anecdotal is evidence. Sometimes, it's the only kind you get.
    2. Alternative medicines have proven efficacy in a number of conditions.
    3. Mainstream doctors endorse what the insurance companies re-imburse. Which is why they often prescribe drugs for which the full corpus of clinical evidence show little or no statistical probability of efficacy.
    EVERYTHING in this paragraph is just pseudoscientific nonsense, and the fact that you believe in this voodoo is obviously clouding your judgment on the issue. "Alternative medicines" are almost ALWAYS fraudulent. Anecdotal evidence is NOT evidence, that is retarded. For over a thousand years people in Europe thought that having their king touch them would cure them of their ailments, based on anecdotal evidence.

    Quote Originally Posted by celticlord
    Yes it is within their rights.
    OK. Now what if they aren't pursuing quack medicine OR prayer, and are just doing nothing at all. Is that within their rights?

    Quote Originally Posted by celticlord
    Never.
    Never? No matter how long the odds are? Quantum physics would state that a small amount of the time, if the parents place the child on the railroad tracks and have a train hit him, the train will pass through him, destroying all the cancer cells while leaving every other cell in his body unharmed. The waiting time for such an event is much greater than the age of the universe, but occasionally it will happen.

    Are those odds long enough to constitute murder? Or are they just betting against the doctor who wants to play the odds?
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

Page 5 of 19 FirstFirst ... 3456715 ... 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
  •