• 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
Kandahar said:
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?
Click to expand...

That is not correct.
 
Redress 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.
Click to expand...

whose personal freedom? the parents or the child? If it is a religious reason, the child should not be required or even expected to follow the tenants related to this decision until an adult.....
again, the parents do not own the child..
 
celticlord said:
That is not correct.
Click to expand...

Everything you have said up until now would lead me to believe it is, so please explain what the difference is between my analogy and the case in this thread. Both scenarios are motivated by religious beliefs. Both scenarios involve an "alternate treatment." Neither scenario involves the parents wishing death upon their child. Both scenarios will result in death for the child.

Instead of pointing out the medical efficacy of certain substances (which do not include purging Satan), please explain at what point it ceases to be child abuse/neglect/murder, and becomes "freedom of religion."
 
Last edited:
UtahBill said:
whose personal freedom? the parents or the child? If it is a religious reason, the child should not be required or even expected to follow the tenants related to this decision until an adult.....
again, the parents do not own the child..
Click to expand...

Some one has to make decisions about the welfare of a child. The state making rules in terms of certain things is ok. Beating your kid is bad. Getting involved in medical decisions, well, now it gets too complicated. Either you have to have rules in place for every possible situation(impractical at best), or you have to appoint people to make the decisions on a case by case basis. Thankfully, we have people who are there to make those decisions on a case by case basis. We call them parents.

I understand the desire to do everything possible to look out for the welfare of children. It is commendable to want to do that. But, at some point, we have to accept that the government cannot, and should not do everything. Sometimes the government has to let people work out there own damnation.
 
UtahBill said:
whose personal freedom? the parents or the child? If it is a religious reason, the child should not be required or even expected to follow the tenants related to this decision until an adult.....
again, the parents do not own the child..
Click to expand...
In Texas, at least, the law does not agree with you.

§153.074 of the Family Code grants a parent the right to, among other things:
(4) the right to direct the moral and religious training of the child.
Click to expand...
 
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?

.
 
Kandahar said:
Everything you have said up until now would lead me to believe it is, so please explain what the difference is between my analogy and the case in this thread. Both scenarios are motivated by religious beliefs. Both scenarios involve an "alternate treatment." Neither scenario involves the parents wishing death upon their child. Both scenarios will result in death for the child.

Instead of pointing out the medical efficacy of certain substances (which do not include purging Satan), please explain at what point it ceases to be child abuse/neglect/murder, and becomes "freedom of religion."
Click to expand...

When foolish examples fail to establish an actual religious context for the treatment of an acknowledged medical condition.
 
Kandahar said:
The right to "direct the moral and religious training of the child" does not include the right to neglect your child until they die.
Click to expand...
True dat. Problem is, however, the parents were not "neglecting" the child. Different treatment does not per se constitute neglect.

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.
 
I just don't know on this one. Both sides have good arguments. It is something maybe that needs to be looked at on a case to case basis?
 
Blackdog said:
I just don't know on this one. Both sides have good arguments. It is something maybe that needs to be looked at on a case to case basis?
Click to expand...

Ultimately, there is no other resolution. A parent may assert religious privilege....and be psychotic, rendering them legally incapable of either making reasonable assertion or acting as conservator of their child. A parent may assert religious privilege and be lying. A doctor may simply be a bigot. A doctor may simply be an incompetent. The disease may have high mortality with great pain and suffering.

Medical care, and medical care of children especially, does not do well with "one size fits all" conclusions.
 
TOJ said:
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?

.
Click to expand...

Yes. Even the judge in this case determined that if the doctors concluded that the cancer had progressed beyond the stage where chemotherapy would be effective at fighting it, he would not order it.
 
Blackdog said:
I just don't know on this one. Both sides have good arguments. It is something maybe that needs to be looked at on a case to case basis?
Click to expand...

Which is exactly what the policy is. In this case, the judge ruled that the parents cannot make a decision that clearly and obviously endangers their child's life
 
celticlord said:
When foolish examples fail to establish an actual religious context for the treatment of an acknowledged medical condition.
Click to expand...

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?

Jim Jones had a religious context for his actions. That doesn't make them right.
 
celticlord said:
In Texas, at least, the law does not agree with you.

§153.074 of the Family Code grants a parent the right to, among other things:the right to direct the moral and religious training of the child.
Click to expand...

Direct, or lead, or guide, but not to force it down their throats until it kills them.....
I have seen several instances where a god fanatic father has forced his religion on his kids, and in nearly all cases, the kids grow up and leave the church. The Christian God does not allow us to harm, or allow harm to, our children on the basis of our beliefs. Jesus said so.....
 
celticlord said:
True dat. Problem is, however, the parents were not "neglecting" the child. Different treatment does not per se constitute neglect.
Click to expand...

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?

celticlord said:
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.
Click to expand...

The difference is that the doctor pursued an effective method that just didn't work this time.
 
Last edited:
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.....
 
Kandahar said:
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?
Click to expand...
Read the whole sentence next time.

celticlord said:
When foolish examples fail to establish an actual religious context for the treatment of an acknowledged medical condition.
Click to expand...

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.

Kandahar said:
Jim Jones had a religious context for his actions. That doesn't make them right.
Click to expand...
Don't be so sure. The folks who drank the Kool-Aid most likely would disagree with you.
 
TOJ said:
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?

.
Click to expand...

The OP has a different scenario, are you moving the goal posts?
 
Kandahar said:
All scientific data indicates that chemotherapy is an effective treatment and that quack medicine is not.
Click to expand...
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.
 
celticlord said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.

celticlord said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?

celticlord said:
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.
Click to expand...

And how long do those odds have to be before it ceases to be "freedom of religion" and becomes murder?
 
Last edited:
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.
 
celticlord said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Kandahar said:
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.
Click to expand...
Ok, you acknowledge your statement was in error. This is progress.

Kandahar said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Kandahar said:
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?
Click to expand...
Yes it is within their rights.

Kandahar said:
And how long do those odds have to be before it ceases to be "freedom of religion" and becomes murder?
Click to expand...
Never.
 
celticlord said:
Ok, you acknowledge your statement was in error. This is progress.
Click to expand...

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.

celticlord said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.

celticlord said:
Yes it is within their rights.
Click to expand...

OK. Now what if they aren't pursuing quack medicine OR prayer, and are just doing nothing at all. Is that within their rights?

celticlord said:
Never.
Click to expand...

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?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom