The courts obviously know better than the family.
UPDATE
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
People should be free to choose what is best for themselves as long as they do not infringe on the rights of others to do the same. I created this blog to discuss issues I have with big government, liberal media,and to talk about my support for capitalism and the Iraq War.
14 comments:
So, basically, you're agreeing to shampoo your kids head after severe head trauma instead of taking it into emergency care - and afterwards not being prosecuted for the omission caring for your child???
I can understand your point that -up to certain degrees - it is a parents' job and duty to make the right health choices for their kids. I agree with you that if parents want to feed their kids XXX-Burgers without having the state intervene (Feeding your kids XXL-Burgers is not a sensitive thing to do, btw..... I ASK FOR THE STATE REGULATING THE BURGER-INDUSTRY.......)
Here, however, it is somewhat different: It is not about unhealthy diets, an unhealthy way of living, it's about a treatment or non-treatment, which could potentially result in a child's death if not provided (XXL-Burgers can result in a child's death, too, but not so very immedeately). The cancer-ridden kid in this case does not have the powers to object to its parents decision to not provide approrpiate treatment to him, so hence, if a child is unprotected, jurisdisction has to step in and guarantee the physical integrety of any child. This case is no different than any child neglect-case in the underlying intention: to protect the child from further harm. It is hopefully quite clear that the more effective treatment for this kind of cancer is the traditional, medical treatment as opposed to any sort of "natural", "homoeopathic" kind of treatment.
Simply speaking: In cases of emergency, of physically endangering a child's life, SOMEONE has to intervene. Thank goodness, this court did.
So, the headline, in my opinion, should rather be "Kids 1 - Parents 0" - and the court most likely saved another life, which otherwise would have been sacrificed for a parents' individual will.
Listen - the 16 year old kid WANTS to seek other treatment and his parents are supportive of that. I believe this kid is old enough to determine the treatment that he wants. He tried the chemo did not like it and he wants to try something else. Now if he wanted chemo and his parents wanted something different that is a whole other story. But the 16 year old wants the new treatment and the paretns agree - why should the court be able to intervene on a FAMILY CONSENSES on what treatment they want.
So, basically, you're saying that if it is family consensus (with all minors agreeing) to consume alcohol for breakfast in order to get the metabolism boosted, then they're very welcome to do so? If the same family then decides to have sex with each other, cause they mutually came to the conclusion that this would be beneficial for the family spirit, it should be tolerated, as well??
As I have stated earlier, certain family decisions - within a tolerable frame and up to the point where noone is physically harmed - should not be interfered by legislation. However, serious and sensitive decisions regarding the physical well-being of a minor (out of the perspective of lawmakers it does not make a difference whether the child is 16, as this boy, or 6, after all - is the same boy, whom you testify the capacity to make sensitive health decisions for himself, allowed to vote?? no) should require attention of lawmakers once there is reasonable doubt that the integrety of the minor is endangered - as in this case of homoepathic treatment of cancer.
You bring up a good point - i think there should be some serious discussion as to whether a 16 year old can vote. I have been thinking about that for a while and I am leaning toward yes. So I do think it matter if the child is 6 or 16. If the child was 6 I would be questioning this, but the 16 year old can think critically about this. Who do you think knows more about this disease and how the treatments work - the 16 year old who has experienced both treaments or the court? I have no issues if Social Services or the court wants to step in and give suggestions to the family but they should not be able to tell the family that their decision is wrong.
I'd agree for the sake of argument that the 16 year old may know what he wants for himself (though my little sister is 16 and if we let her do everything she thought was a good idea she'd be dead by now). But the court isn't given that luxury- as long as the 6 year old and the 16 year old are both in the same legal classification, any ruling they make regarding the 16 year old can later be used as precedent in a case with a 6 year old. So replace '16-year old' with '6-year old' in the article and see if you disagree wiht the court's ruling. Whether we want to lower the age of majority is another matter, which I believe centers more on the legislative than the judicial branch.
To me it is this simple--
Imagine you are the one dying - who do you want to decide your fate? You and your family or some court?
If I were six years old, and my parents thought that the best treatment option for a highly treatable but otherwise fatal disease was herbal remedies from a mexican clinic, combined with eating my spinach, you bet your ass I would want the courts telling them to go to hell and steping in to save my life.
But you don't want to ask the question of what I would want if I were the kid. The answer is obvious- I'd want to be cured. You want to ask the question of what I would want if I were the parent- after all, your title was 'Courts 1 - Parents 0.' And yes, if I were a parent who didn't believe in modern medicine or whatever, I would probably want the right to deny my children proper medical treatment. To which I respond, no, I don't want parents to have the right to kill their children, even if they really really believe it's the right thing to do. Maybe that makes me a totalitarian asshole, but so be it; I don't think parents shold have absolute rights over the safety and health of their children.
This discussion reminds me of the home-schooling debate earlier this year - cause it is based on the same misperception: The misperception being that by being a parent, by raising a child, one "automatically" incorporates all wisdom, all powers, all knowledge to do it the right way. Based on this misperception, an attitude is falsely generated, namely that because one thinks one has incorporated all this "I know what's best for my child" you are granted all the rights in the world to DECIDE for your child. This is, and I fully agree with Darwin here, not the case.
Some parents just think that they're ALMIGHTY in child-rearing questions. They're not. In fact, it TRULY aggrevates me that they think they are, and it bothers me even more that so many children have to suffer therefrom.
I'm not sure I'd go that far with the argument. Whether homeschooling is good or not is a murky question- it basically requires you to both decide and justify which of two people is better (one who is homeschooled versus one who isn't), and I'm not sure how comfortable I am with the state making that kind of decision. In the case of life-saving medically treatments, however, the question becomes which is better, a dead kid or a living kid, in which case i'm much more comfortable with the state saying that the alive kid is better.
Bastiat said: "..if the kid and his parents are delusional enough to think that homeopathic brews from Mexico are a better option than civilized medicine..."
Homeopathic brews? Read on:
2000 B.C. - Here, eat this root.
1000 A.D. - That root is heathen. Here, say this prayer.
1850 A.D. - That prayer is superstition. Here, drink this potion.
1940 A.D. - That potion is snake oil. Here, swallow this pill.
1985 A.D. - That pill is ineffective. Here, take this antibiotic.
2000 A.D. - That antibiotic has lost its effectiveness. Here, eat this root.
When people have surgery as minor as cataract removal, they have to tell their doc EVERYTHING they take, including "homeopathic brews" and the like, which tells me that they obviously have some effect on the inner workings of the human body, otherwise, why would the ophthalmologist care?
And as far as a 16 year old having the right to make decisions about their own medical care (or lack thereof), I agree with Diatribe that 16 is most likely old enough. Actually, some 16 year olds are better able to discern their own political views than some 46 year olds I have spoken to. Old enough to know you don't want a radioactive IV? Yeah, 16 knows.
I think it is unfair to say that one treatment is going to kill him and the other will keep him alive. The fact is we do not know what will work best for him. Why would this person and his family pick something that is going to kill him? It is not like they are anti technology - they tried the chemo and did not like it. They think this alternative treatment is the best course of action as of now.
I had also heard the 90% recovery rate for younger persons with this type of cancer who get chemo, but in some ways the specifics of this case are irrelevant to the larger point. Obviously if the parents are choosing between two types of treatment with similar clinically proven success techniques, then the courts have no right to step in and force them to choose since neither one would better ensure the survival and health of the child. This question is only interesting in cases where the decision of the parents will clearly severaly harm the health of the child, when another practical alternative would clearly have a much better chance of helping the child. Obviously extensive expert testimony should always be a part of these procedings.
To compare alternative approaches to health, to dancing rituals? Well, that's a bit petty. I have kids at home and can't always be as clear and concise as I want to be due to distractions, but my point with the "timeline" was this: Ideas of what works and what won't have changed over time and what was once the latest, most effective medicine may now be called "snake oil." Someday, chemo may be considered primitive, or worse. 90% success rate or not, this is a decision that should be made by the patient and his family, not the legal system. The approach the family is taking now may not have the best outcome of all the possible choices, but the quality of life in the meantime needs to be considered, too, and that's something that can't be best decided in a courtroom.
Murder may not have the best possible outcome either, but it may increase the quality of life of the murderer up until they're caught. And you can't say they're not comparable: we're looking at a child almost certainly dieing vs a 90% recovery rate. The only possible difference is the intention on the part of the parents vs. the murderer, and frankly intention is unprovable and not really something I want the courts to consider in their decisions.
I assume you want the courts to step in in the case of abusive parents. But what if abusive parents think they ar e'toughening up' their children and are really doing what's best for them? Should the courts stay out them, even if teh abuse to the child is exactly the same?
Courts shouldn't be considering intentions, they should be considering outcomes, and the outcome in this case is a dead kid.
Post a Comment