• 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
I'm inclined to say not. State intervention is typically regarded as an undue authoritarian imposition, but what's apparently not considered is that the parental prohibition of treatment may actually constitute a more authoritarian imposition, considering that the consequences of the former may be something so trivial as successful treatment, whereas the consequences of the latter could be significantly worse.

An additional element that warrants consideration is the capacity of children to make their own treatment decisions. It's imperative to note that the category of "children" includes all minors, including infantilized adolescents who could likely function in adult society if given the means and opportunity. Moreover, I think it likely that even legitimate "children" could make informed and rational treatment decisions in some circumstances, especially if we as a society took the initiative to stimulate their intellectual development at younger ages. Much of the empirical literature supports this analysis. For instance, we could consider Weithorn and Campbell's The Capacity of Children and Adolescents to Make Informed Treatment Decisions. Consider the abstract:

This study was a test for developmental differences in competency to make informed treatment decisions. 96 subjects, 24 (12 males and 12 females) at each of 4 age levels (9, 14, 18, and 21), were administered a measure developed to assess competency according to 4 legal standards. The measure included 4 hypothetical treatment dilemmas and a structured interview protocol. Overall, 14-year-olds did not differ from adults. 9-year-olds appeared less competent than adults with respect to their ability to reason about and understand the treatment information provided in the dilemmas. However, they did not differ from older subjects in their expression of reasonable preferences regarding treatment. It is concluded that the findings do not support the denial of the right of self-determination to adolescents in health-care situations on the basis of a presumption of incapacity. Further, children as young as 9 appear able to participate meaningfully in personal health-care decision making.

Unfortunately, most prefer to consider their own anecdotal experiences to arrive at conclusions contrary to those of the empirical literature, which obviously does not facilitate a sound or rational analysis.
 
So, should parents be allowed to refuse life saving treatment for their children?

No parents should not be allowed to refuse life saving treatment for their children. We do not allow parents to beat the living **** out of their kids,let them let their kids walk around nude, and let them starve their children to death. So why on earth would we allow parents to basically kill their children by letting them not get life saving treatment.
 
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.
Though I support the Constitution as you say, I have one issue with the notion of parents refusing any medical treatment for their children. It's like this, Americans have a right to life, liberty and property and as a pro-life person I believe the life is a God given right. Now I viewed this topic as regarding lifesaving medical care. I don't mean just any medical care like for a cut or sniffles. Does that make sense?
 
Though I support the Constitution as you say, I have one issue with the notion of parents refusing any medical treatment for their children. It's like this, Americans have a right to life, liberty and property and as a pro-life person I believe the life is a God given right. Now I viewed this topic as regarding lifesaving medical care. I don't mean just any medical care like for a cut or sniffles. Does that make sense?
To say the idea that a parent might make such a decision is disquieting in the extreme. However, as one who is of the opinion that life is more than a detectable heartbeat and brainwave activity, that life is also a matter the values by which we order our lives (and, as parents, our children's lives), I am even more disquieted by the notion that a parent's values and their decisions on how to order their child's life could be subject to the review of a court.
 
No parents should not be allowed to refuse life saving treatment for their children. We do not allow parents to beat the living **** out of their kids,let them let their kids walk around nude, and let them starve their children to death. So why on earth would we allow parents to basically kill their children by letting them not get life saving treatment.

I think it is important to define what life saving is. I don't consider Chemo life saving as most of the time it does little.
 
To say the idea that a parent might make such a decision is disquieting in the extreme. However, as one who is of the opinion that life is more than a detectable heartbeat and brainwave activity, that life is also a matter the values by which we order our lives (and, as parents, our children's lives), I am even more disquieted by the notion that a parent's values and their decisions on how to order their child's life could be subject to the review of a court.

When a parent's decisions, whatever they are based on, put a child's life in danger somebody has to step in. I once reported a couple who would not bring their child to the emergency room after several of their neighbors and friends told them their child was very sick. Social services, the cops and paramedics arrived. Their daughter had pneumonia. Those parents apologized to us and thanked us for our intervention. Without our help their 4 year old daughter would have died.

I would do it again in a heartbeat. I'd report you, a relative or anyone else who refused to provide medical care for their child.

You do not have the right to not provide medical care for a child of yours. Especially life saving medical care. As others have said, we're not talking about an aspirin or cold medicine. We're talking about life threatening situations.
 
You do not have the right to not provide medical care for a child of yours. Especially life saving medical care. As others have said, we're not talking about an aspirin or cold medicine. We're talking about life threatening situations.

  1. Chemotherapy is not necessarily "life saving". Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't, sometimes it kills the patient before the tumor.
  2. The parents made a choice to pursue alternative treatments. Your example fails because yours was a case of inaction, not action with which you personally disagree. A better example would be defending calling CPS because a parent gave a child Extra Strength Tylenol instead of Advil.
 
Chemotherapy is not necessarily "life saving". Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't, sometimes it kills the patient before the tumor.

It has the best chance of working of any available option. If there is an equally viable option, then the parents should be able to pick from amongst them.

celticlord said:
The parents made a choice to pursue alternative treatments. Your example fails because yours was a case of inaction, not action with which you personally disagree. A better example would be defending calling CPS because a parent gave a child Extra Strength Tylenol instead of Advil.

Their "alternative treatments" are no different than doing absolutely nothing; in either case the result will be the death of their child. And please spare me the defense of the effectiveness of pseudoscientific quack medicine again...believe me, you don't want to go down that road.

Do you believe that parents should be allowed to do nothing at all when their child is gravely ill? How is that any different than denying them food?
 
Last edited:
It has the best chance of working of any available option. If there is an equally viable option, then the parents should be able to pick from amongst them.



Their "alternative treatments" are no different than doing absolutely nothing; in either case the result will be the death of their child. Do you believe that parents should be allowed to do nothing at all when their child is gravely ill? How is that any different than denying them food?

What you would be asking is that parents experiment on their children. I can't go along with the Chemo idea. I can go along with other things though.
 
It has the best chance of working of any available option. If there is an equally viable option, then the parents should be able to pick from amongst them.

Their "alternative treatments" are no different than doing absolutely nothing; in either case the result will be the death of their child. Do you believe that parents should be allowed to do nothing at all when their child is gravely ill? How is that any different than denying them food?

Terry Schiavo?
 
Do you believe that parents should be allowed to do nothing at all when their child is gravely ill? How is that any different than denying them food?

Denying food is clearly actively harmful to a child. It is easy to legislate. For medical treatments, it is nearly impossible to legislate due to too many other factors. The best you can do is legislate some one to make the decision on medical care for children. Who do you propose to trust to make the best informed decision on a child's welfare, if not the parents?
 
Terry Schiavo?

Denying food is clearly actively harmful to a child. It is easy to legislate. For medical treatments, it is nearly impossible to legislate due to too many other factors. The best you can do is legislate some one to make the decision on medical care for children. Who do you propose to trust to make the best informed decision on a child's welfare, if not the parents?

The denial of food is asinine in my opinion. When i say that i want to end my life as in euthanasia I don't mean for my partner to starve me to death.

Parents that would withhold food from a child should be put behind bars. That is in no way a medical treatment that is barbarism at it's finest.
 
The denial of food is asinine in my opinion. When i say that i want to end my life as in euthanasia I don't mean for my partner to starve me to death.

Parents that would withhold food from a child should be put behind bars. That is in no way a medical treatment that is barbarism at it's finest.

When I think of exersising a right to die, I have a picture of a doctor injecting something into the IV tube and the patient seemingly going to sleep in peace.

Denying food, even if through a feeding tube, is barbaric, I agree.
 
Last edited:
When I think of exersising a right to die, I have a picture of a doctor injecting something into the IV tube and the patient seemingly going to sleep in peace.

Denying food, even if through a feeding tube, is barbaric, I agree.

You are so correct. I have an image of death in peace maybe kissing or holding a loved one. Not fighting with your own body as you die a slow pain filled death from lack of food or water. This is beyond reason.
 
It has the best chance of working of any available option. If there is an equally viable option, then the parents should be able to pick from amongst them.
You do not know that. For that matter, neither do the doctors. Remember, they're only playing at being gods.

Their "alternative treatments" are no different than doing absolutely nothing; in either case the result will be the death of their child. And please spare me the defense of the effectiveness of pseudoscientific quack medicine again...believe me, you don't want to go down that road.
You do not know this either.

Do you believe that parents should be allowed to do nothing at all when their child is gravely ill? How is that any different than denying them food?
It depends on their reasoning for doing nothing. So long as they are making conscientious decisions, I am not prepared to challenge their right to make those decisions.

And spare me the red herring pontifications about abuse and neglect. Cases of abuse and neglect by definition do not involve conscientious decisions.
 
  1. The parents made a choice to pursue alternative treatments.


  1. The ruling in the OP article stated:
    A Minnesota judge ruled Friday that a 13-year-old cancer patient must be evaluated by a doctor to determine if the boy would benefit from restarting chemotherapy over his parents' objections.

    In a 58-page ruling, Brown County District Judge John Rodenberg found that Daniel Hauser has been "medically neglected" by his parents, Colleen and Anthony Hauser, and was in need of child protection services.

    Daniel was diagnosed with Hodgkin's lymphoma and stopped chemotherapy in February after a single treatment. He and his parents opted instead for "alternative medicines" based on their religious beliefs.

    Doctors have said Daniel's cancer had up to a 90 percent chance of being cured with chemotherapy and radiation. Without those treatments, doctors said his chances of survival are 5 percent.

    Court filings also indicated Daniel has a learning disability and can't read.

    Daniel's parents have been supporting what they say is their son's decision to treat the disease with nutritional supplements and other alternative treatments favored by the Nemenhah Band.

    The Missouri-based religious group believes in natural healing methods advocated by some American Indians.

    In this case I can certainly see why the judge sided with the doctors. Nutritional supplements? Are you serious? 90% possible chance of success versus 5% without chemo.

    I hope these idiot parents try to interfere, are put in jail and the kid is cured. Of course, they would argue it would have happened without the chemo. Idiots.
 
In this case I can certainly see why the judge sided with the doctors. Nutritional supplements? Are you serious? 90% possible chance of success versus 5% without chemo.
Ok, so the doctors say THEIR method has a 90% chance of success, and that any other approach has a 5% chance of success.

Yep, no bias there.:roll:
 
Terry Schiavo?

Terry Schiavo was not a child whose parents were killing her by denying her food (or medical treatment). She was a braindead woman with no hope of recovery whose husband had the legal right to make that decision for her. If the kid in this case was already braindead and his parents wanted to remove the feeding tube, I would absolutely support their rights to make that decision without the state interfering. But he is NOT braindead and he CAN possibly recover with chemo. Nice try though. :2wave:

Do you think parents should be able to deny their child food because Jesus told them to? Do you think parents should be able to deny their child life-saving medical care because Jesus told them to?
 
Denying food is clearly actively harmful to a child. It is easy to legislate. For medical treatments, it is nearly impossible to legislate due to too many other factors. The best you can do is legislate some one to make the decision on medical care for children. Who do you propose to trust to make the best informed decision on a child's welfare, if not the parents?

Child Protective Services who investigate the case, the doctors who testify in the court regarding the best option, and the elected/appointed judge who rules on the case.
 
It depends on their reasoning for doing nothing. So long as they are making conscientious decisions, I am not prepared to challenge their right to make those decisions.

And spare me the red herring pontifications about abuse and neglect. Cases of abuse and neglect by definition do not involve conscientious decisions.

Who cares if it's a "conscientious decision" if it harms the child? Some parents believing that beating their kids within an inch of their life for the most minor infraction will teach them discipline. That's a conscientious decision too, but it's still child abuse.
 
Ok, so the doctors say THEIR method has a 90% chance of success, and that any other approach has a 5% chance of success.

Yep, no bias there.:roll:

The fact that you are DEFENDING quackery is obviously clouding your judgment on this issue. That goes above and beyond the normal libertarian rhetoric that "The government doesn't have the right to ever interfere with parents under any circumstances." I'm telling you now: Defending quack medicine is not an argument that you are going to win. I suggest you take a different tack to explain why you don't think the state should interfere. Just some advice, do with it what you will.
 
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]

Yes, of course. The parents (or guardian) should have the ultimate say of a minor child's situation.
 
Child Protective Services who investigate the case, the doctors who testify in the court regarding the best option, and the elected/appointed judge who rules on the case.

So it's getting pretty complicated now, and still comes down to opinions as to what is best for the child. Child Protective Services, are they qualified to make medical decisions over a parent? Doctors and judges who may or may not make unbiased, accurate decisions. I can remember, as an example, the controversy started by a Detroit judge who held up ruling, and then ruled against a 14 year old girl who wanted to get an abortion after she got pregnant from being molested by her mothers boyfriend(with mothers consent). Holding up the ruling was important, making any abortion later term and more dangerous.
 
So it's getting pretty complicated now, and still comes down to opinions as to what is best for the child. Child Protective Services, are they qualified to make medical decisions over a parent? Doctors and judges who may or may not make unbiased, accurate decisions.

These parents obviously aren't making unbiased, accurate decisions. So I'll trust the people who have the medical degrees.
 
Back
Top Bottom