Arrest Warrant Issed For Mom (legal, Minnesota, abortion, abuse)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Apparently parents are no longer allowed to decide what is best for their children? Parents are no longer allowed to accept or decline specific medical treatments?
A Sleepy Eye, Minnesota mom & her son are apparently headed to Mexico primarily because they don't want to accept court ordered chemotherapy for the son.
This has been going on for many years. Parents don't have unlimited rights to treat their children as they please. You also don't have unlimited rights to treat your dog as you please. Ask Michael Vick.
The state has always had the right to intervene in the best interest of a child.
This has been going on for many years. Parents don't have unlimited rights to treat their children as they please. You also don't have unlimited rights to treat your dog as you please. Ask Michael Vick.
The state has always had the right to intervene in the best interest of a child.
But does the state have the right to force kids to receive medical treatment?
To clarifiy, if this was my child, he'd be in getting the chemo and radiation - because it appears that his is a fairly treatable form of cancer.
However... My mom died of cancer, and I can assure you that chemotherapy and radiation are both BRUTAL, and terribly hard on the body. In addition, there is absolutely no guarantee that they'll work.
So shouldn't parents have at least some say in this decision? And is there some point at which the state is violating "separation of church and state"?
I suppose I could launch into a tirade about the irony of this, in relation to legalized abortion, but that'd be a severe hijacking of the OP.
But does the state have the right to force kids to receive medical treatment?
To clarifiy, if this was my child, he'd be in getting the chemo and radiation - because it appears that his is a fairly treatable form of cancer.
However... My mom died of cancer, and I can assure you that chemotherapy and radiation are both BRUTAL, and terribly hard on the body. In addition, there is absolutely no guarantee that they'll work.
So shouldn't parents have at least some say in this decision? And is there some point at which the state is violating "separation of church and state"?
I suppose I could launch into a tirade about the irony of this, in relation to legalized abortion, but that'd be a severe hijacking of the OP.
I can't tell whether your question is "do the parents have the right to withhold medical treatment" or "should the parents have the right to withhold medical treatment"
I think the answer to both of those questions is a qualified NO.
The courts have consistently ruled that the state can intervene in the best interest of the child. It's been happening for years with the Chrisian Scientist who don't believe in medical treatment. Old news. Decided many years ago.
Should the state have the right to intervene? If the state can prove to a court that the child's life or health is endangered by a parent, then I think the state is obligated to step in. Whether it's abuse or some wacky religious belief the state has a right and obligation to intervene. Children are not property.
I can't tell whether your question is "do the parents have the right to withhold medical treatment" or "should the parents have the right to withhold medical treatment"
I think the answer to both of those questions is a qualified NO.
The courts have consistently ruled that the state can intervene in the best interest of the child. It's been happening for years with the Chrisian Scientist who don't believe in medical treatment. Old news. Decided many years ago.
Should the state have the right to intervene? If the state can prove to a court that the child's life or health is endangered by a parent, then I think the state is obligated to step in. Whether it's abuse or some wacky religious belief the state has a right and obligation to intervene. Children are not property.
I don't wholly disagree, but part of me - at gut level - can't help but be a little concerned with all of this.
With my mom's cancer, there was a point at which the decision had to be made regarding continuation of chemo or its cessation. It was an absolutely gut-wrenching decision, because there was always that possibility that "just one more treatment" might get the job done.
I suppose part of what's at issue here is that, in the case of this boy, it seems that treatment has a pretty high percentage of success, and non-treatment will be fatal.
But in the end, don't we - as responsible adults - have any say in what medical treatments are foisted upon us or our children?
I don't wholly disagree, but part of me - at gut level - can't help but be a little concerned with all of this.
With my mom's cancer, there was a point at which the decision had to be made regarding continuation of chemo or its cessation. It was an absolutely gut-wrenching decision, because there was always that possibility that "just one more treatment" might get the job done.
I suppose part of what's at issue here is that, in the case of this boy, it seems that treatment has a pretty high percentage of success, and non-treatment will be fatal.
But in the end, don't we - as responsible adults - have any say in what medical treatments are foisted upon us or our children?
I think the legal threshold should be high for the state. They should have to clearly demonstrate that the child is at risk and that the parent's position is not just wrong, but reckless. If there's a competent medical doctor who embraces the parent's position, I think you rely on the parent's judgment, but if the only support is a fringe religious belief and all the science is on the other side, you save the child.
But in the end, don't we - as responsible adults - have any say in what medical treatments are foisted upon us or our children?
No, because as we know from all the horrible news stories, there are plenty of parents out there who are not responsible enough or have enough common sense when it pertains to rearing their kids.
I think the legal threshold should be high for the state. They should have to clearly demonstrate that the child is at risk and that the parent's position is not just wrong, but reckless. If there's a competent medical doctor who embraces the parent's position, I think you rely on the parent's judgment, but if the only support is a fringe religious belief and all the science is on the other side, you save the child.
That's a good point.
It's going to be very interesting how this plays out. From the sounds of things, mom & son are headed to Mexico - likely for alternative treatments. If that is true, that certainly complicates the case. If the treatments work, there are still minor legal wranglings. If the treatments don't work, and the boy dies, this mom faces all kinds of potential criminal charges.
Even so, there's another aspect of this that scares me a little - and it might be unwarranted, but... Isn't it a little frightening with the government says, in essence, "We don't care what your religious beliefs are. We're telling you that this IS what you ARE going to do."
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
