• 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
Jerry said:
Of course I am, but I'm also recognizing that those rights are not absolute.
Click to expand...

A more accurate descriptor of those rights would be "nonexistent". You cannot make a choice which will knowingly result in their death of your child, period.

I've already said many times on this thread that I am open to any argument which can establish a "compelling state interest" and interfere with the parent's right in the "care, control and custody" of their children (per Troxil).
Click to expand...

Would you consider the article in question a case of a "compelling state interest"?

Just an example :2wave:
Click to expand...

Noted. I'm still not sure that I see its relevance.
 
Ethereal said:
No person should retain sole discretion over another person's very existence.
Click to expand...

True, and I don't think any one is suggesting otherwise. However, the government does not belong involved in medical decisions.
 
Redress said:
True, and I don't think any one is suggesting otherwise.
Click to expand...

No, you are suggesting precisely otherwise. Parents cannot refuse their child life-saving treatment for any reason. In the event that they do refuse, it is incumbent upon society to act via government proxy and rectify the situation. The statement, "the government does not belong involved in medical decisions" does not stand on its own logic. The government can legitimately involve itself in anything characterized by a "compelling state interest".
 
Ethereal said:
No, you are suggesting precisely otherwise. Parents cannot refuse their child life-saving treatment for any reason. In the event that they do refuse, it is incumbent upon society to act via government proxy and rectify the situation. The statement, "the government does not belong involved in medical decisions" does not stand on its own logic. The government can legitimately involve itself in anything characterized by a "compelling state interest".
Click to expand...

You are suggesting that any such decision would be clear cut. It won't be. But once you let the government in that door you never know when some one, with the best of intentions, will be there making the wrong decisions for your family.
 
Redress said:
You are suggesting that any such decision would be clear cut.
Click to expand...

This is a blatant lie. I said precisely the opposite in my first post:

Ethereal said:
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.
Click to expand...

But once you let the government in that door you never know when some one, with the best of intentions, will be there making the wrong decisions for your family.
Click to expand...

I repeat: The government can legitimately involve itself in anything characterized by a "compelling state interest".
 
Ethereal said:
A more accurate descriptor of those rights would be "nonexistent". You cannot make a choice which will knowingly result in their death of your child, period.
Click to expand...

Abortion.

Anyway, I've refrenced Troxil, and with a little token reserch I have every confidence that you will see that the parent's do have such a right.

As to the case in question, it splits the hair nicely. The deciding factor for me is the fact that the child himself doesn't want chemo, opting for the alternative treatements himself.

Ethereal said:
Would you consider the article in question a case of a "compelling state interest"?
Click to expand...

Given the dromatic diference between the liklyhood of sucess between the 2 options, I think there may be a compelling interest. If the diference between the chances of sucess were narrower between the two options, problably not.

Ethereal said:
Noted. I'm still not sure that I see its relevance.
Click to expand...

Well it was an example where one person had complete and total dominance over another indivigual's fate and chose death when other valid options were available.

In the case of Terry Schiavo, the state sided with the medical proxy even though that meant certan death, so when I look at this I wonder why the state doesn't side with the parents when though that also means certan death.
 
Ethereal said:
This is a blatant lie. I said precisely the opposite in my first post:
Click to expand...

In the post I quoted, you gave a clear cut example, and I was responding to that. I should have been more specific in my response, and I apologize if I implied that you where suggesting all situations would be clear cut.


Ethereal said:
I repeat: The government can legitimately involve itself in anything characterized by a "compelling state interest".
Click to expand...

"Can" does not mean "should". I have been very clear in not quoting law, but answering the question originally asked, which is should parents be allowed to refuse life saving treatments for children.
 
Jerry said:
It's not even your place to trust or not trust as they aren't your children.
Click to expand...

Bull. Society DOES have the right to take action against unfit parents. By your same logic, parents should be able to molest, torture, neglect, or actively murder their children...and it's not our place to trust or not trust their decisions, since they aren't our children. :roll:

Parents do not have absolute authority over their child's life. For that matter, children do not have absolute authority over their own lives either. The state does have a role to play in cases like these. However, if the child was around 16 instead of 13, I would support his right to refuse treatment on his own accord.
 
celticlord said:
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.
Click to expand...

Actually, the correct analogy would be this: engineers inspect the bridge and say it needs to be closed, temporarily, for rebuilding of the supports. The folks who own the bridge (non-engineers) don't want it closed down, and instead believe that putting lots of rocks under the bridge will support it enough.
 
Jerry said:
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 :roll:
Click to expand...

Just because a parent has been involved in every aspect of a child's life, does not make them an expert on medical treatment.



Oh sure, pure objectivity here :roll:

A technical opinion has value, but it does not make decisions.
Click to expand...
I agree with that.

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).
Click to expand...

However, it would make sense that, if the parent truly cared, they would try to obtain as much information, not being an expert in everything, as they could in order to make that decision.

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.
Click to expand...
You've mentioned a couple of times how this is similar to the abortion debate. Can you elaborate?
 
Kandahar said:
Bull. Society DOES have the right to take action against unfit parents. By your same logic, parents should be able to molest, torture, neglect, or actively murder their children...and it's not our place to trust or not trust their decisions, since they aren't our children. :roll:

Parents do not have absolute authority over their child's life. For that matter, children do not have absolute authority over their own lives either. The state does have a role to play in cases like these. However, if the child was around 16 instead of 13, I would support his right to refuse treatment on his own accord.
Click to expand...

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.

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.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Just because a parent has been involved in every aspect of a child's life, does not make them an expert on medical treatment.

I agree with that.

However, it would make sense that, if the parent truly cared, they would try to obtain as much information, not being an expert in everything, as they could in order to make that decision.
Click to expand...

I'm agreeing completely with the sergeant argument that there comes a point where religious freedom stops and the state needs to intervene to prevent medical neglect. Though I reserve my opinion on the OP's example given the lack of critical details, it thus far appears that state intervention may be appropriate. I'm not sure at this point.

My concern regards where exactly the line is drawn and how that boundary can and likely will be abused (imo) in the future.

CaptainCourtesy said:
You've mentioned a couple of times how this is similar to the abortion debate. Can you elaborate?
Click to expand...

In both cases we have a parent who is choosing a coarse of action which will likely end their child's life when there are valid alternatives available. With abortion the parent can do whatever she chooses in accordance with her personal beliefs, but when it comes to treating this boy the parent's beliefs are tossed right out.

Why?

Topping it off is the child's own objection to receiving chemo. It is as though we have a ZEF screaming through the ultrasound into the doctor's ear "abort me, abort me", yet the ***choice*** is being denied regardless.

On another thread we are discussing euthanasia. If the child himself and his family choose for him to die this way, who are we to object? It's their life, their child, and more over it's his life he's choosing to potentially forfeit.

It's his body, his choice, is it not? Granted he's a minor child and so we need his legal guardian to sign off any any contracts or consents (unless he wanted an abortion, ironically), but his legal guardians are consenting on his behalf.

Since everyone is on board with this except the state, I want to know what establishes the state's compelling interest here.

***
God bless FireFox and its built-in spell checker :mrgreen:
 
Last edited:
Also, the article in the OP needs to publish a correction: Cancer is NEVER "cured", it goes into remission.

Maybe from the boy's perspective, he's going to die from this either way.

Interesting that many would support dispensing lethal drugs to prevent suffering, whereas in this case NOT dispensing drugs would prevent suffering (chemo is no fun, fyi).


Maybe the boy and his family would rather he die in peace than die in pain from chemo.

Who is the state to make that decision for them?
 
Last edited:
celticlord said:
Society should respect that right.
Click to expand...
I concur. I am weary of giving the state power over the parents in this situation.
 
I don't think parents should be allowed to refuse treatment for their child. I also think that children should be able to refuse treatment if they so desire.
 
Jerry said:
Maybe from the boy's perspective, he's going to die from this either way.
Click to expand...

That's not the doctor's prognosis "if" he undergoes chemo. And the kid probably doesn't have a good understanding of his situation as he's somewhat learning disabled and he is a kid.

Maybe the boy and his family would rather he die in peace than die in pain from chemo.
Click to expand...

From what the doctors say, he has a 90% chance of living. Is it really that important to you that a parent get the last word even if it's at the cost of their child's life? Seriously.
 
ADK_Forever said:
That's not the doctor's prognosis "if" he undergoes chemo. And the kid probably doesn't have a good understanding of his situation as he's somewhat learning disabled and he is a kid.

From what the doctors say, he has a 90% chance of living. Is it really that important to you that a parent get the last word even if it's at the cost of their child's life? Seriously.
Click to expand...

In this case, yes, it is that important.
 
Jerry said:
I know, allowing people to choose their own fate is inhumane, but I am an Evil Conservative.
Click to expand...

You choosing death for your child out of pride and ignorance is nothing close to "allowing people to choose their own fate".
 
ADK_Forever said:
You choosing death for your child out of pride and ignorance is nothing close to "allowing people to choose their own fate".
Click to expand...

You're assuming motives for a person not in the situation and thus isn't making the decision :lol:

Good debate tactic there, wow I'm convinced :roll:

I'm not choosing death for any of my children, I'm so far giving support to parent's who want to choose a less painful death for their child.

If it were me, than since I'm not a member of this Native American group, I might make a different decision. I might choose to put my child through the pain out of the Christian ideal that you always choose life.

My argument on this thread is that the state has not demonstrated a compelling interest to be involved at all. You seem to keep ignoring that point.
 
Last edited:
jallman said:
Then what's the point of having a discussion with you if you are going to be obtuse?
Click to expand...

Remember back in the day when we bashed each other on every issue, only to eventually find out that our views weren't all that different?

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