• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

So, should parents be allowed to refuse life saving treatment for their children?


  • Total voters
    49

obvious Child

Equal Opportunity Hater
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 8, 2008
Messages
19,883
Reaction score
5,120
Location
0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
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]
 
Last edited:
No they shouldn't. What if the parents are abusive and totally hate the kid, and use their power of refusing live-saving treatment in a bad way? Kids should always be given every chance to live.
 
It depends on the situation. Sometimes MDs will have good faith disagreements over the best course of treatment, so the "life-saving treatment" that a patient requires is not always so clear-cut. However, when several MDs reach a consensus the parents better have an air-tight, medically sound argument if they wish to refuse treatment. Should they refuse treatment on any grounds besides valid medical considerations they should be summarily ignored.
 
While I would never advocate what could be parental neglect, I am equally uncomfortable second guessing parental decisions.

Parents have the right to decide what is and is not in their child's best interests. They have the right to decide what adds or detracts from their child's quality of life. They have the right to decide what constitutes appropriate care.

Society should respect that right.
 
Possibly the most difficult question I've seen posted on DP. I just don't know. I lean towards no, but without the actual circumstances of each case I can't necessarily make that call universally.
 
While I would never advocate what could be parental neglect, I am equally uncomfortable second guessing parental decisions.

Parents have the right to decide what is and is not in their child's best interests. They have the right to decide what adds or detracts from their child's quality of life. They have the right to decide what constitutes appropriate care.

Society should respect that right.

While that is all good and well and I do lean that way, it seem seriously wrong to let children die because their parents refuse medical treatment. That stance is letting parents kill their own kids. Is that a parental right?

In some ways, refusing to let your child have medical life savings treatment could be seen as negligent homicide in some cases.
 
Parents are "responsible" for their children.
They do not "own" them.

nuff said.
 
I really really really want to say that no, parents should not be allowed to refuse life saving medical treatment for their children. I just cannot do it. I say that for a number of reasons, but for the most practical reason is that it would be nearly impossible to tailor a law that would be workable without infringing on personal freedom.
 
While that is all good and well and I do lean that way, it seem seriously wrong to let children die because their parents refuse medical treatment. That stance is letting parents kill their own kids. Is that a parental right?
It is not a universal right. However, especially when there are religious and spiritual dimensions to the dilemma, I will not second guess a parental decision.

There needs to be more evidence of neglect and/or abuse than merely a decision not to pursue the course of treatment recommended by a physician.

In some ways, refusing to let your child have medical life savings treatment could be seen as negligent homicide in some cases.
Again, it depends on the rationale. Superseding religious belief even for the preservation of human life is a dangerous realm for courts to venture into. That is a line I will not cross. I would object strenuously should any cross that line against me, I will not cross it against someone else.
 
Parents dont own their children they are responsible for them.Childrens decisions on medical issues are made by the state not their parents.
 
No. Parents have no right to allow their children to die when they are able to prevent it. That is, at best, child neglect. However, if this kid was, say, 16 instead of 13, I would be more inclined to respect HIS wishes on the matter.
 
I think it should be the parents decision. They have to weigh personal and spiritual beliefs, the quality of the child's life after the treatment, and any other circumstances that might be involved.
 
Parents dont own their children they are responsible for them.Childrens decisions on medical issues are made by the state not their parents.
The state has no right to second guess the parent in such matters. As an operation of law, the 9th and 10th Amendments stand solidly against such a position, in addition to the 1st Amendment in this particular case.

As a matter of practice, parents authorize medical treatments for their children, not the state.

Unless we are prepared to surrender parental authority and parental prerogative to the state, yours is an indefensible position.
 
The state has no right to second guess the parent in such matters. As an operation of law, the 9th and 10th Amendments stand solidly against such a position, in addition to the 1st Amendment in this particular case.

As a matter of practice, parents authorize medical treatments for their children, not the state.

Unless we are prepared to surrender parental authority and parental prerogative to the state, yours is an indefensible position.

If the parents had a religious belief that their child was the Antichrist and the only way to prevent him from being reborn was to starve him to death over the course of three weeks, would the state have any cause to intervene? I'm hard-pressed to see any distinction at all between the two cases.
 
Our current system works fine. This is the first time I can recall hearing about the government forcing treatment, and it's a pretty exceptional circumstance. In exceptional circumstances such as this one I am absolutely fine with the judge's decision.
 
If the parents had a religious belief that their child was the Antichrist and the only way to prevent him from being reborn was to starve him to death over the course of three weeks, would the state have any cause to intervene? I'm hard-pressed to see any distinction at all between the two cases.
Then look again. Your hypothetical is totally off point.

This child's parents are making a decision to pursue an alternate path of care predicated on certain religious convictions of theirs. Your hypothetical parents are affirmatively seeking to end their child's life.
 
The state has no right to second guess the parent in such matters.

Of course it does. This isn't a new scenario.
Parents have been tried and convicted of withholding medical treatment from their children for stupid religious beliefs.

Last Easter Sunday, an 11-year-old Wisconsin girl died of untreated diabetes after her parents chose to pray for her recovery rather than seek medical help. Madeline Kara Neumann's parents, Dale and Leilani Neumann, are scheduled to be arraigned in Marathon County next week on charges of second-degree reckless homicide.

The Wisconsin case is only the latest in a grim procession of hundreds of such cases stretching back to the late 1800s in England, when a sect called the Peculiar People ended up on trial for allowing generations of children to die as a result of their decision to spurn doctors and medicine.

Few realize just how common the use of faith healing still is in our state and elsewhere, and how many children's lives are at stake. Except for the by-now predictable flurries of media attention every time another child dies due to what experts call religion-based medical neglect, there has been surprisingly scant attention paid to the accumulative toll of these deaths. That is one reason UW history instructor and author Shawn Francis Peters decided a couple of years ago to research the controversial topic.

"When Prayer Fails: Faith Healing, Children, and the Law" is the first book to look unflinchingly at the tragic cases of children who have died because their parents place absolute faith in the power of prayer rather than in the efficacy of modern medicine. The book, published this spring by Oxford University Press, came out just weeks before Kara -- as she was called -- died in Weston, propelling Peters into the national spotlight.
Healing or homicide? The use of prayer to treat sick children

Diabetes! DIABETES!!! Can you think of an easier medical condition to treat? This is so irresponsible I can't believe anybody would defend an adult parent who would do this.

Parents who do this should be eligible for the death penalty themselves!

There are plenty of other examples of this ignorant behavior.
 
Parents have been tried and convicted of withholding medical treatment from their children for stupid religious beliefs.
Yes they have. The state has been in the wrong each and every time.

On a side note....religious beliefs are never "stupid." Those who argue otherwise are themselves wrong, each and every time.
 
Then look again. Your hypothetical is totally off point.

This child's parents are making a decision to pursue an alternate path of care predicated on certain religious convictions of theirs. Your hypothetical parents are affirmatively seeking to end their child's life.

OK, well what if they believed that their child was the Antichrist, and instead of feeding him hot dogs they were going to feed him arsenic, to purge the devil from his body. Just an alternate path of care.
 
Yes they have. The state has been in the wrong each and every time.

On a side note....religious beliefs are never "stupid." Those who argue otherwise are themselves wrong, each and every time.

Regardless of whether or not they're "stupid," when they encourage you to abuse or neglect your child they become criminal. As they should. Freedom of religion does not give parents the right to abuse or neglect their children, any more than I have a right to kill random people and claim Jesus told me to do it.
 
Last edited:

Irrelevant. You understand the point of the analogy and are just splitting hairs instead of addressing the point.

OK, well what if they believed that their child was the Antichrist, and instead of feeding him hot dogs they were going to feed him arsenic, to purge the devil from his body. Just an alternate path of care.

Cyanide. Botulism. Mercury. Take your pick.
 
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]

Assuming we're talking about children and not fetuses, the answer is no. They should not be allowed to refuse life saving treatment.
 
Irrelevant. You understand the point of the analogy and are just splitting hairs instead of addressing the point.
Actually, I'm pointing out the flaw in your analogy. You are presuming the arsenic to be a poison, and is being used as a poison. Arsenic is used in approved medical treatments. Your presumption of ill use, and thus your analogy, fail completely.

Cyanide. Botulism. Mercury. Take your pick.

Same flaw. Same failure.

cyanide - Etymology, Appearance and odor, Occurrence and uses, Toxicity, Poison use, In Current Events
Medical uses of mercury
Safety and efficacy of NeuroBloc (botulinum toxin ...[Neurology. 1999] - PubMed Result
 
Actually, I'm pointing out the flaw in your analogy. You are presuming the arsenic to be a poison, and is being used as a poison. Arsenic is used in approved medical treatments. Your presumption of ill use, and thus your analogy, fail completely.



Same flaw. Same failure.

cyanide - Etymology, Appearance and odor, Occurrence and uses, Toxicity, Poison use, In Current Events
Medical uses of mercury
Safety and efficacy of NeuroBloc (botulinum toxin ...[Neurology. 1999] - PubMed Result

Do any of those websites mention purging Satan from one's body as a legitimate medical use of those substances? If not, please address the analogy I presented instead of these silly irrelevant claims about medical efficacy.

Just to clarify: If parents want to feed their kids arsenic/cyanide/botulism/mercury to purge the devil from their body, you don't believe the state has any cause to interfere. Is that correct?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom